HR Morning News, Page 37 Category

Learn how IT departments can lead the business toward a technology solution that makes HR processes faster and more agile. Download this white paper to learn more!

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: E-signatures and HR: How IT Can Help the Business Hire Talent Faster

Source: News from HR Morning

With a good portion of the country digging out from recent staggering snowfalls, it seems like a good time to review what rights and responsibilities employers have to employees who miss work because of inclement weather.

Rebecca Goldberg, writing on the Connecticut Labor and Employment Law blog, offers a pretty comprehensive look at snow day absences. Here’s a rundown of what she had to say:

Exempt employees

Since they’re paid on a salary basis, except in rare circumstances, a reduction in hours doesn’t change exempts’ pay.

If a business is closed for less than a week, the law requires that exempt workers be paid their full salaries. But the feds also say it’s permissible to require the employee to use vacation days or other PTO to cover their absence — but if the employee has no PTO time available, his or her salary can’t be reduced.

Caveat: State laws may vary on these issues, so it’ll pay to check with your company attorney.

So, OK. You can make exempts use up vacation time for snow days. But Goldberg cautions that “if an exempt employee performs any work during the day (whether onsite or from home), the employee must be paid for the whole day.”

Partial-day deductions from a paid time off bank are allowed, even for exempt employees.  So, if an exempt employee chooses to come in late due to road conditions, a portion of a day may be deducted from the employee’s paid time off bank — again, if the employee has PTO available. Partial-day deductions in pay aren’t allowed.

Non-exempt employees

As you well know, non-exempts are paid only for hours worked, so generally speaking, if the snowdrifts prevent them from getting to the workplace, they don’t get paid. Again, though, Goldberg offers a word of caution: “Some passive time, such as on-call time, is considered ‘hours worked,’ so it is possible some non-exempt employees will need to be compensated, even if they do not perform any actual work.”

Some state laws require some form of payment for non-exempt employees who report to work and are then sent home early.

In addition, employers should count these hours as “hours of service” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act.

Tips for employers

Here’s Goldberg’s general advice on handling employee pay issues that come with absences caused by the weather:

Many employers choose to pay all employees for the full day, without deducting from a paid time off bank, for administrative simplicity, employee morale, or other reasons.  (Of course, a collective bargaining agreement may limit these choices.)

Whether or not to close the worksite can be a difficult decision and may be influenced by road conditions, the length of employees’ commutes, the nature of the job, whether schools are closed, production requirements, whether telework is possible, employee morale, and the amount of pay at issue.

Unless the employee’s job is of a critical nature (think hospital employees), employers should avoid subjecting an employee to discipline or termination for failing to report to work if the employee feels the road conditions are unsafe.

Employers should communicate to employees beforehand how the employees will be notified of a worksite closure.  Small employers typically will call each employee at home or send an email, while larger employers may announce a closure through a radio station or company website.

Whatever you choose, make sure employees know whether they are expected to report to work.

For more HR News, please visit: Do your people have to be paid for ‘snow days’? Some guidelines

Source: News from HR Morning

If a data breach can occur at Anthem, a company that provides health coverage to one in every nine Americans, it can happen to any medical insurer. And a number of experts believe it’s only a matter of time before it does.  

By now, most HR pros have heard something about the data breach at Anthem that made national news.

More than 80 million members

According to reports, as many as 80 million current and former members may have had their medical and personal info compromised.

This info includes names, medical identification and Social Security numbers and other employment info.

Unlike many data breach victims that tend to find out about the incident via a third party (bank, credit-card company, etc.), Anthem uncovered the cyber attack on its own. When the breach was discovered, the insurer notified anyone who was potentially impacted including policyholders, members and business partners.

In a statement, Anthem’s President and CEO Joseph R. Swedish commented on the severity of the breach by stating:

Based on what we know now, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes were targeted or compromised.

Almost half of all major breaches

Although Anthem’s breach was more publicized than other cyber attacks on health data, it’s hardly an isolated incident.

In fact, healthcare organizations accounted for 42% of all major data breaches in 2014, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center.

And industry experts believe this will only get worse.

In fact, a 2014 warning from the FBI’s Cyber Division claimed that healthcare systems are at increased risk of a breach due to a transition to electronic records, loose cybersecurity standards and a higher payout on the black market for stolen medical records (this data can fetch between $100-$300 per record, compared to just 10-25 cents per compromised credit-card file).

What’s required of employers?

In light of the Anthem breach, now may be a good time to talk to your insurer about the safeguards it has in place for its medical data — and review any contracts and documents.

It’s also a good time for a refresher on what your obligations are in the event your insurer’s data is compromised.

The folks at Oagletree Deakins remind employers that plan type will determine how to react to the breach. For example:

• If your health plan is fully insured, your insurer is the covered entity responsible for investigating and taking appropriate mitigating measures as well as providing all required notices to those affected by the breach.
• If your plan is self-insured, the responsibility ultimately falls on you, as the plan sponsor. But when you outsource the claims administration role, the TPA may have the contractual obligation to assess/respond to the breach. At the very least, TPAs have a notice obligation to the plan/employer and a responsibility to provide details surrounding the breach.

For more HR News, please visit: Why HR should care about the recent Anthem data breach

Source: News from HR Morning

Do you have to accommodate individuals whose religious beliefs lead them to think their jobs will brand them with the “Mark of the Beast?” Is this something you even have to worry about? 

Let’s tackle the second question first: Apparently, discrimination lawsuits involving the “Mark of the Beast” — and accommodation requests to avoid it — aren’t all that uncommon.

Just recently, we brought you the case of Beverly Butcher, Jr., who worked at Consol Energy’s Robinson Run Mine.

Butcher feared the hand scanner Consol used to track workers’ hours would imprint him with the “Mark of the Beast.” As a result, he said using the scanner went against his religious beliefs and asked HR officials to seek alternative options for him.

Apparently, the manufacturer of the scanner had heard these accusations before and was ready with a letter it passed along to Consol, which then gave to Butcher. It said the scanners “do not in any way have the ability to detect … or place the ‘mark of the Beast’ or any other mark on a person’s hand.”

In the end, Consol denied his request for accommodations.

Butcher then took his case to the EEOC, which filed a religious discrimination suit on his behalf. A jury then awarded Butcher $150,000.

Bottom line: These cases do need to be taken seriously.

Accommodations can’t ask you to violate federal law

Now, on to the first question: Do you have to accommodate individuals whose religious beliefs lead them to think their jobs will brand them with the “Mark of the Beast?”

The result of Butcher’s lawsuit may have you leaning toward “yes.” But really, these cases should be treated no differently from other religious or disability accommodation requests.

Rather than focusing on whether the person’s religious belief or disability is serious enough to warrant an accommodation, focus instead on whether or not providing an accommodation would create an undue business-related hardship.

Recently, in a case that went against an individual with a “Mark of the Beast” claim, a court determined that an accommodation request that would conflict with federal law would create an undue business hardship — and, therefore, could be denied.

The case involved job candidate Donald Yeager and another energy firm, FirstEnergy Generation Corp.

Yeager had applied for a job at FirstEnergy, which then asked Yeager for his Social Security number.

At that point, Yeager informed FirstEnergy that he had no Social Security number because, as court documents point out, “he had disclaimed and disavowed it on account of his sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Yeager believed that being identified by any number was tantamount to having the “Mark of the Beast.”

Yeager then sued, claiming religious discrimination.

His case, however, was thrown out by a court before it could go to trial.

In dismissing his case the court said the Internal Revenue Code requires employers such as FirstEnergy to collect and provide the Social Security numbers of their employees, and that violating a federal statute would impose an undue hardship on FirstEnergy.

Focus on the hardship question

The difference between Butcher’s case and Yeager’s: Providing Butcher with another method of logging his work hours likely wouldn’t have created an undue hardship for Consol.

Meanwhile, there appeared to be no way of accommodating Yeager without violating a federal statute.

In neither case were the individual’s religious beliefs called into question by the courts, and employers can expect that to be the case in other courtrooms.

In all but perhaps the rarest of cases, courts will focus the majority of their attention on assessing whether or not what individuals are asking for would create undue business-related hardships.

Cite: EEOC v. Consol Energy Inc. & Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp.

For more HR News, please visit: ‘Mark of the Beast’ keeps popping up in lawsuits: Are accommodations required?

Source: News from HR Morning

The traditional functions of a time and attendance system still matter, but newer solutions can deliver so much more. Join this informative webcast to learn some of specific advantages that cloud delivery offers for time and attendance, and for an update on the security best practices that vendors should employ to keep your system, and your data, safe. You’ll Learn:

• How cloud delivery enhances workforce management
• What security questions to ask a cloud provider
• Why you need a system built for your total workforce
• How a modern solution can boost manager and employee performance

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Cloud Time and Attendance: How a Modern Solution Helps You Unlock Employee Potential

Source: News from HR Morning