This bulletin provides an update on issues for Affirmative Action subscribers.  Please contact us if you have any questions about this case or about their effects on your business.

QUESTION FOR THE SUPREME COURT: 
IF WE CAN’T FIX ADVERSE IMPACT,
WHAT CAN WE DO?

As with many issues, the answer is probably to ask the question in a different way.  The better questions are perhaps how should you address adverse impact and when should you address the possibility of adverse impact.  As you likely have heard by now, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of white firefighters in a case we have been watching with great interest.  On Monday, June 29, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court ruled in Ricci v. DeStefano, a.k.a. “the New Haven firefighter case,” that New Haven, Connecticut could not justify throwing out the results of employment tests that would have largely left Black candidates ineligible for promotions to the rank of firefighter lieutenant or captain.  The case is garnering much press because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sits on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was part of the three-judge panel that affirmed the opinion of the Second Circuit – and that Court’s ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.  However, for our affirmative action clients, the case has much larger implications:  just what are we supposed to do in the event of a finding of adverse impact?
 

FACTS

Like many cities throughout the United States, the City of New Haven historically has had very few minorities in the upper ranks of its fire department.  Also like many cities, New Haven has had to deal with protracted lawsuits over this issue.  In the hope of making objective decisions and avoiding future lawsuits, New Haven developed a selection procedure for promotions which consisted of a written test and structured oral examination.  After investing extensive time and money into developing the testing process and ensuring it was closely based on the actual job skills at issue, New Haven administered the exam.  The applicants hunkered down and studied.  The results of the test would determine which firefighters would be considered for promotion during the next two years, and also would determine the order in which they would be considered.  The stakes were high.
 
In 2003, 118 New Haven firefighters took the promotion qualification examinations. When the results came back, Black and Hispanics candidates had performed miserably on the test.  In fact, only one Hispanic and no Black candidates scored well enough to be considered for an immediate promotion to captain.  The City was understandably concerned.  Results this lopsided would surely spawn a lawsuit attacking the test based upon its adverse impact.  The City’s attorney did the City no favors by making repeated conclusive statements along the lines of “a statistical demonstration of disparate impact . . . standing alone . . . constitutes a sufficiently serious claim of racial discrimination.”  Ricci, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 at *17. 

The City’s Civil Service Board held hearings to decide whether to use the results or start over.  They heard complaints that White employees whose families had been firefighters for generations had access to expensive and lengthy study materials that other minority candidates did not.  They heard complaints that some of the test did not accurately predict the ability to make leadership decisions at the scene of a fire.  They listened to experts who spoke out for and against the usefulness of the exam.  And their attorney told them that because the skewed results constituted an adverse impact, if sued (and they would be), the City would have to prove that the test was job-related and consistent with business necessity.  They might also have to prove that there were no alternatives to the test which did not have the same impact.  All of this would take time and money.

After these hearings, the City decided to throw out the test results and start the promotion process over.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Several of the White promotion candidates sued, claiming that the City’s decision to toss out the results based upon the fact that no Black candidates had passed was discriminatory against them.  The City explained that it didn’t certify the test results out of fear of being sued by minority applicants over the disparate impact – which was dramatic.  Both the trial judge and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the City was justified in throwing out the results. 

THE OPINION

The Supreme Court was not so sympathetic to the employer’s dilemma.  Acknowledging that there was disparate impact, the high court said that that the very real risk of being sued was not enough because the City had a potential defense to that lawsuit.  That defense was that, even though the results were lopsided, the written test was job-related and consistent with business necessity.  In essence, serious concern over being sued for disparate treatment is not enough by itself to permit a race-based decision to prevent a disparate impact claim.
 
The Court’s opinion puts the employer in a peculiar and uncomfortable position, holding that the employer must show “a strong basis in evidence” that it would have been held liable if sued for disparate impact by the minority applicants.  In other words, in order to, for example, throw out a test that had statistically-significant adverse impact, the employer must prove that using the results would be discriminatory!  The Court noted the City’s significant efforts to develop a good test and determined that the City could not prove it would lose a case brought by minority candidates who didn’t pass the test.  

The Court stated clearly:

Nor do we question an employer’s affirmative efforts to ensure that all groups have a fair opportunity to apply for promotions and to participate in the process by which promotions will be made.  But once that process has been established and employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee’s legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race. 
Ricci, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 at *46-47 (emphasis added).  The Court concluded that an employer could only make such a change in its established process once it has this “strong basis in evidence” that the practice would be a provable disparate impact violation.  Because New Haven had only shown that it might lose a lawsuit by minority applicants, the White firefighters prevailed. 

OBSERVATIONS

Decisions have to be “race blind.”  They must be “color blind.”  They must be “gender blind.”  You get the point.  Absent some sort of over-riding justification, these protected statuses cannot be the bases of employment decisions.  The Court stated this clearly:  “Whatever the City’s ultimate aim – however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed – the City made its employment decision because of race.”  Ricci, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 at *38.  This has long been one of the mantras we have repeated and cautioned government contractors about in our training:  affirmative action does not allow preferences or any race-based decisions – even when the motivation may be to increase diversity.  Such race-based decisions can be used against the employer, and that’s just what happened here.  Affirmative action for our purposes is about outreach, casting a broad recruiting net, and monitoring employment decisions to ensure non-discrimination.  When it comes to selection decisions, the ultimate deciding factor must be determining who is the best candidate for the job. 

Remember that, although this opinion focused on written and oral testing, the Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures (“UGESP”) define “selection procedure” very broadly to include any “measure, combination of measures, or procedure” used as a basis for any employment decision.  As indicated in the EEOC’s Interpretation and Clarification, the UGESP are more broad than applying only to written tests and instead “apply to all selection procedures used to make employment decisions, including interviews, review of experience or education from application forms, work samples, physical requirements, and evaluations of performance.”  When you, as a government contractor, conduct your annual adverse impact analysis (or disparate impact analysis or impact ratio analysis), you are testing your entire hiring process as a whole; that may include actual pen and paper tests, oral tests, judgments based on resumes and applications, interview results, etc.  You are testing your entire process.  Arguably, the Ricci ruling can be expanded to affect all selection procedures – not just tests.  Once you establish your selection process and procedures, you cannot invalidate those practices on the basis of some protected class – unless you have a strong basis in evidence that the practice you wish to abandon would be a provable disparate impact violation. 

If you continue to use actual tests, however, please do so with extreme caution.  This has long been our advice to clients.  Employment trends come and go, and it seems testing was somewhat out of vogue for many years, but I am getting an increasing number of calls from clients who want to implement testing.  This may well result from the current hiring market – with more applicants than ever, employers are struggling to find tools to help them select the best fit for open positions.  But testing has been moving closer to the center of the EEOC’s targeting radar for the past several years, and now this case will put it right in the middle of everyone’s target zone.  If you must test, keep your tests closely tied to the job requirements and have your tests validated.  The UGESP allow criterion-related, content, or construct validation studies, and provide detailed technical standards for those techniques.  (And remember that true validation studies are complex, lengthy documents, not four-page self-serving statements drawn up by test vendors).

This case also exemplifies the kind of litigation we have been warning about for years:  your affirmative action efforts can be used against you by prospective plaintiffs.  Never forget that there are numerous audiences for your Affirmative Action Plan and related programs; the OFCCP is only one of them.  Portions of the third paragraph from the Ricci Court’s opinion set the stage for how this case came to be – and also carry important lessons for how government contractors should NOT address highly-sensitive adverse impact issues:

When the examination results showed that white candidates had outperformed minority candidates, the mayor and other local politicians opened a public debate that turned rancorous.  Some firefighters argued the tests should be discarded because the results showed the tests to be discriminatory.  They threatened a discrimination lawsuit if the City made promotions based on the tests.  Other firefighters said the exams were neutral and fair.  And they, in turn, threatened a discrimination lawsuit if the City, relying on the statistical racial disparity, ignored the test results and denied promotions to the candidates who had performed well. 
Ricci, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 at *9.  Never let it be said that I am not in favor of open and honest discussions of race relations, but such a public discussion over statistically-significant adverse impact results should be something all employers seek (with vigor) to avoid.

Given the facts of this case and the public hiring process involved in municipal government [1], this public airing of potential discrimination may have been unavoidable, but it is avoidable for most of you; conduct your adverse impact under attorney-client privilege.  While you cannot use the privilege to shield unlawful actions, you can evaluate your selection process, the job-relatedness and business necessity of your selection process, and potential data issues under the cloak of privilege.  You can determine whether some applicants should be omitted from the analysis because they were not minimally qualified, you can determine whether the sample size is too small to make for meaningful statistical analysis, you can analyze whether any minority candidates were offered positions but turned them down – these and other factors can turn a statistically-significant adverse impact result into one that passes muster.  And your initial drafts – which were flawed but still confess arguably unlawful impact – in most cases would be protected. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there’s the matter of timing.  One of the reasons the City decided not to certify the test results was that another consultant (a direct competitor of the company who developed the initial test, but I’m sure that didn’t lead to any conflict of interests) pointed out that there were other tests out there that could help with the selection process without adverse impact.  Seems to me the better time to be analyzing other options and evaluating approaches recommended by competitors would be back before investing significant time and money into developing and implementing the test in the first place.  Assuming due diligence on the front end, employers shouldn’t have buyer’s remorse after a test is implemented, wondering if there was a better option out there.  The Court’s opinion makes clear that once an employer implements a selection procedure which results in an adverse impact, it faces the specter of lawsuits, OFCCP enforcement, and possible liability whether it uses the questionable results or tosses them out.  Instead, do that analysis on the front end, before implementing your processes.
 
This Affirmative Action Update was prepared by Donna Eich Brooks, an attorney with the law firm of Lehr, Middlebrooks, & Vreeland, P.C.  Donna can be reached for questions/further information at (205) 226-7120 or at  dbrooks@lehrmiddlebrooks.com.

[1] This promotion selection process was also subject to a collective bargaining agreement, which made it that much more complicated, public and open to scrutiny. 

The Alabama State Bar Requires The Following Disclosure:

“No Representation Is Made That The Quality Of
The Legal Services To Be Performed

Is Greater Than The Quality Of Legal Services
Performed By Other Lawyers.”

 
Click here to download this issue as a pdf

Vengeance After ARRA

June 25, 2009
9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. CST

ARRA HIPAA.  No, we didn’t say, “Aarghhhhhhhhhhhhh!  HIPAA!” (although we’ve felt it and we know you have too).  It’s ARRA HIPAA.  As in “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Pub. L. 11-5, which you’ve already heard a great deal about in changing your withholding tables and tweaking and re-tweaking your COBRA administration.  Now that the ultra-time-sensitive COBRA periods have passed, it’s time to turn your attention back to HIPAA, a subject that caused great upheaval in the beginning years of this decade and is now back with a vengeance.

ARRA substantially amended HIPAA’s administrative simplification rules, including re-defining the “minimum necessary” standard. The new Privacy and Security Regulations will require group health plans and other HIPAA-covered entities to make significant modifications to their policies, procedures, and business associate relationships.  They will also require business associates to tackle compliance issue with a greater sense of urgency than before.

ARRA tightened some existing HIPAA provisions, such as marketing and individual rights, and created some entirely new obligations.  As was the case with the initial round of HIPAA-hoopla, employers who sponsor fully-insured plans will see few changes related to the new rules, while self-insured plan sponsors will need to revisit their privacy notice, policies and procedures and will most likely need to update their compliance program. 

In this two-hour webinar, Donna Brooks will first discuss the myriad changes to HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Regulations and the varying compliance deadlines for those changes.  The second part of the webinar will be a refresher course on the Privacy and Security Regulations.  This will allow business associates to play “catch up” on their new compliance obligations, and will also allow covered entities to double-check their compliance efforts.  Have some compliance requirements slipped by the wayside or faded with memory?  Did you pay the same kind of attention to the Security Regulations that you did to the Privacy Regulations?  On the whole, we’ve found that covered entities were in need of a back-to-basics approach to HIPAA-compliance even before ARRA HIPAA put HIPAA back in the headlines. 
As time permits, participants will be able to submit their questions to the presenter.  However, because time will be tight and we recognize these issues are so important to all of you, we are offering those who register the opportunity to send in advance any questions you are already grappling with, and we will do our best to address those specific questions (anonymously) during the webinar.  To submit questions, please send an e-mail to dbrooks@lehrmiddlebrooks.com.
 
The program has been approved for two hours of HRCI Credit.

The registration fee for this webinar is $75 per connection site, with no limit on the number of participating attendees at each site. See link below to register.

Click here for more information or to register

and Killing Time: 

Recent Developments In Federal Wage & Hour Compliance

When?

June 10, 2009
9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (CST)

The 2009 Federal Budget includes funding for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division to hire immediately an additional 250 new field investigators. This hiring spree, announced by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis last month, means the Wage and Hour Division will increase the number of field investigators by more than a third in 2009 alone.
 
Don’t expect these newly hired investigators to spend their time chatting up co-workers around the DOL watercooler. Instead, Solis says they’ll be deployed to the field promptly to ensure “that every worker is paid at least the minimum wage, that those who work overtime are properly compensated, that child labor laws are strictly enforced and that every worker is provided a safe and healthful environment.”
 
Employers, listen up! Once these new field investigators hit the pavement, your odds of a DOL audit increase three-fold. Making matters worse for employers is a perfect storm of wage and hour issues. The U.S. Government Accountability Office just issued a scathing public report censuring DOL’s Wage and Hour Division for “sluggish response times, a poor complaint intake process, and failed conciliation attempts, among other problems,” problems Solis will seek to fix now. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus bill”) introduced billions of dollars in federal spending projects, each of which is to be compliant with the Davis-Bacon Act (to be enforced by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division), mandating a set of complex wage rules for federal contractors to follow.  Finally, wage and hour lawsuits have exploded in recent days as workers have found their paychecks pinched and turned to litigation as an alternative means of getting paid.
 
In this HRCI accredited webinar, LMV attorney Matthew Stiles and LMV consultant Lyndel Erwin, a former District Director with DOL’s Wage and Hour Division with over 35 years of DOL experience, will discuss:
 
(1)     Practical implications of recent wage and hour developments;

(2)        Steps you can take now to avoid the compliance pitfalls that get most employers into litigation or other trouble with DOL including employee misclassifications, comp time, time-clock rounding, meal breaks, off-the-clock work, donning/doffing, and child labor.

(3)    If you’re a federal contractor subject to the Davis-Bacon Act or Service Contract Act, stay tuned for the last half hour as we discuss key compliance requirements for anyone performing (or bidding to perform) under federal contract.
 
The registration fee for this webinar is $75 per connection site, with no limit on the number of participating attendees at each site.
 

Click here for more information

The When Work Works initiative is grounded in the results of research on workplace effectiveness and flexibility. The award given is the Alfred P. Sloan Workplace Flexibility Award.  This research, funded by IBM, reveals that employees in effective and flexible workplaces are more likely to:

• Be engaged in their jobs and committed to helping their company succeed;
• Plan to remain with their employer; and,
• Feel satisfied with their jobs.

Recently, one of SourcePointe’s very own clients received some recognition on a local network for that very idea.  Concept Inc. has been noted in several publications for their “outside of the box” approach to work environments and employee retention.

I remember bringing the owner of SourcePointe out to meet with Susie Kelley, President of Concepts Inc., and watching his face as we walked in the door.  After meeting with the team for an hour, he simply looked at me and said, “Wow.”  “Wow” is the overall feeling you receive after an encounter with the team at Concept Inc.

Sometimes, in economic times such as the one we are facing, business owners have to begin to tap into their creative side to look for ways to retain their best talent.  Outside of allowing pets into the office place, Susie and her team also have an on-site childcare program, allowing parents to have easy access to their children and the peace of mind of having them onsite.

Although I could speak for days on the successes Concept Inc has due their focus on their team, I thought it best to provide you the actual links to the stories that were run on them not to long ago.

Concept Wins in the Workplace

Concept Wins in the Workplace Part II

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SourcePointe is a human resources outsourcing firm that provides your company  with “back room” human resources services such as; on-site payroll administration, human resources compliance, benefits administration, online human resources management, and employee performance enhancement.

At SourcePointe, our vision is to be your partner of choice by tailoring strategic and innovative Human Resources solutions that enable you to focus on your core business needs in order to maximize profitability.

We are the choice service organization made up of dedicated local professionals committed to providing proactive Human Resources solutions to our business partners.

 Many business owners, managers, and supervisors believe email is the best way to go, however, a message can be easily misinterpreted or taken out of context.  Another downfall about email, it can sink a lawsuit!  We have another great example of email serving as the silent witness against an employer.  Here is a quick recap.

 A company posted a position for a casting assistant and began interviewing those who qualified for the position.  One of the applicants who made it to the interviewing stage was visibly pregnant.  When she was not chosen for the position, she sued the company, claiming she was rejected due to her pregnancy.  Although the company had a pretty viable claim that she was not as qualified as individual they chose to hire, an email served as a fast moving torpedo, sinking that claim.

 During the discovery portion of the legal process, an email was found from the hiring manager to another employee where he expressed concern that the applicant would not be able to handle the stress and other duties of the job because she of her pregnancy.  This sunk the employer’s defense since they could no longer prove the hiring decision was unbiased.   The result?  The company ended up paying the plaintiff $75,000 in a settlement. 

 Some Key Take Aways-

• Managers need to understand the dangers in discussing major HR decisions, including hiring decisions, via email. This is especially true when the matter involves sensitive topics.
• Emails are permanent and any relevant emails can be requested by an attorney to serve as evidence.
• If an email makes it to the evidence table, chances are, it will be read, perhaps even out of context to help hurt the employer’s case.
• Managers must remember that when emailing, their words can be held against them in a court of silent opinion.

 Do you have a policy regarding emails?  If not, this might be one you want to consider.  As a standard, it is part of some of the Human Resource Consulting we provide our clients at SourcePointe of Alabama.  If this article provided you a little bit of heartburn, chances are, you need to talk to us.  Call us today or Email Us for a free consultation on some of your Human Resources “torpedoes.” 

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

SourcePointe is a human resources outsourcing firm that provides your company  with “back room” human resources services such as; on-site payroll administration, human resources compliance, benefits administration, online human resources management, and employee performance enhancement.

At SourcePointe, our vision is to be your partner of choice by tailoring strategic and innovative Human Resources solutions that enable you to focus on your core business needs in order to maximize profitability.

We are the choice service organization made up of dedicated local professionals committed to providing proactive Human Resources solutions to our business partners.

For the most part, the answer is yes. Among the companies who choose to outsource, 90% are satisfied with the services provided by the outsourcing vendor, according to a recent poll by the Society for Human Resource Management.  Additionally, about 1/3 or 33% of companies plan to increase their HR outsourcing this year, while just 17% plan to decrease.

As a general rule, companies get the most out of the arrangement when it’s used for paperwork-intensive administrative tasks, like managing benefits and administering 401(k) plans.

At the companies planning to get more outside help, the areas most likely to be outsourced are:

• background and criminal record checks (65%)
• flexible spending account (FSA) administration (52%)
• health benefits administration (46%), and
• payroll administration (34%).

The key question: Could outsourcing with SourcePointe help your company save money?

Maybe. Just under half (49%) of the companies surveyed said they’d cut costs as a direct result of outsourcing. Many of the cost saves came not from reducing the overlay of the outsourced functions’ employees, but rather, reallocating the employees to better serve the company and help to increase revenues/profit. 

One of the cost saves not recognized that often is the risk management provided by the services provided by SourcePointe of Alabama. 

As mentioned in the article above, proper training of managers is key to avoiding potential legal ramifications in decisions made regarding the human capital of your company.  Our teams of HR Professionals work with your company and management teams to enable them to be the most informed when it comes to HR compliance, regulations, and general knowledge.  Without becoming too intrusive, our team is able to provide a full scale HR service to your company for what you are most likely paying for Payroll Administration. 

With the constant change to Human Resource policies and regulations, evident in the legislative sessions of late, SourcePointe can help ease your mind when it comes to protecting your company.  Please consider meeting with me or Email Us today to discuss more about how we can partner with you and not only take some of the administrative load off of your plate, but also save you money!

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SourcePointe is a human resources outsourcing firm that provides your company  with “back room” human resources services such as; on-site payroll administration, human resources compliance, benefits administration, online human resources management, and employee performance enhancement.

At SourcePointe, our vision is to be your partner of choice by tailoring strategic and innovative Human Resources solutions that enable you to focus on your core business needs in order to maximize profitability.

We are the choice service organization made up of dedicated local professionals committed to providing proactive Human Resources solutions to our business partners.

We have asked Matthew Stiles with Lehr, Middlebrooks, and Vreeland to discuss some of the ramifications of the changes as well as ways employers can ensure they are compliant with the new regulations.  We have had the pleasure of listening to Matt’s presentations on various Employment Law topics and he has not only a great delivery, but always makes it fun with some of his experiences.

Matt Stiles, a shareholder in his firm, represents employers in all facets of the employment relationship, with an emphasis in employment litigation, labor relations, employee benefits and executive compensation, employment tax, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, affirmative action and OFCCP compliance. Prior to returning to the firm in 2007, Matt served as Associate General Counsel for Regions Financial Corporation, a Fortune 500 bank holding company, where he had chief responsibility for its labor and employment matters, nationwide. Matt was recently named to the Birmingham Business Journal‘s “Best of the Bar” for his work in executive compensation and benefits. The Birmingham Business Journal also named Matt to its “Top 40 Under 40″ list for 2008.

Matt received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of the South and his Juris Doctorate from The University of Alabama School of Law where he served as an editor of the Alabama Law Review and as a member of the Phillip C. Jessup International Moot Court Team. During law school, Matt was also a law clerk to The University of Alabama Office of Counsel where his duties included defense of litigation and NCAA compliance.

Matt is an adjunct professor of law at The University of Alabama School of Law and a frequent presenter and published writer on employment-related business issues. (Click here for some of his articles)  He is admitted to practice before the state and federal courts of Alabama and Tennessee.

Please join us in March at our office in Southbridge. We are inviting you to attend this free Lunch and Learn, please click here to email us and we will be sure you get the invitation!  See you on April 2nd!

Before we get into the importance of documentation, we must mention one editorial note.  Although progressive discipline is not legally required, it is legally beneficial.  If you do decide to follow through with written progressive discipline policies and practices, be sure to clearly outline when they should be executed and be sure to always be consistent.  Not that is out of the way…

Documentation methods are fairly simple, however, depending upon your company, the “if and when” can vary.  If you do not currently have a system in place, it is a good idea to construct an employee handbook of some sort outlining the procedures for not only your management team, but also your employee base.  Once you do this, however, be sure everyone follows the policies consistently.

What about the “Verbal Warning”?  The step in the process commonly known as the “verbal warning” is simply an oxymoron.  It is a good idea to document the verbal warning in writing for later uses.  In fact, even if you use a memo-style approach, it is good to have documentation on any type of meeting concerning or leading up to progressive discipline.  If the progression leads to termination, then you can rely on the previously documented meetings as evidence of fairness to the employee.  Although documentation does not guarantee anything if the termination should be challenged legally, it does provide some basis for the EEOC or for a court to understand the decision.

If you find yourself without an employee handbook or any type of formal progressive discipline method, please contact us.  Our HR professionals work with you to develop a comprehensive plan specifically for your company and will train not only you, but also your supervisors on the importance of following the guidelines.  Why worry if you are making the right decision?  Cast that concern on SourcePointe and let us partner with you to help protect you against employment litigation.  Click here for more information.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SourcePointe is a human resources outsourcing firm that provides your company  with “back room” human resources services such as; on-site payroll administration, human resources compliance, benefits administration, online human resources management, and employee performance enhancement.

At SourcePointe, our vision is to be your partner of choice by tailoring strategic and innovative Human Resources solutions that enable you to focus on your core business needs in order to maximize profitability.

We are the choice service organization made up of dedicated local professionals committed to providing proactive Human Resources solutions to our business partners.

We have asked Matthew Stiles with Lehr, Middlebrooks, and Vreeland to discuss some of the ramifications of the changes as well as ways employers can ensure they are compliant with the new regulations.  We have had the pleasure of listening to Matt’s presentations on various Employment Law topics and he has not only a great delivery, but always makes it fun with some of his experiences.

Matt Stiles, a shareholder in his firm, represents employers in all facets of the employment relationship, with an emphasis in employment litigation, labor relations, employee benefits and executive compensation, employment tax, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, affirmative action and OFCCP compliance. Prior to returning to the firm in 2007, Matt served as Associate General Counsel for Regions Financial Corporation, a Fortune 500 bank holding company, where he had chief responsibility for its labor and employment matters, nationwide. Matt was recently named to the Birmingham Business Journal‘s “Best of the Bar” for his work in executive compensation and benefits. The Birmingham Business Journal also named Matt to its “Top 40 Under 40″ list for 2008.

Matt received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of the South and his Juris Doctorate from The University of Alabama School of Law where he served as an editor of the Alabama Law Review and as a member of the Phillip C. Jessup International Moot Court Team. During law school, Matt was also a law clerk to The University of Alabama Office of Counsel where his duties included defense of litigation and NCAA compliance.

Matt is an adjunct professor of law at The University of Alabama School of Law and a frequent presenter and published writer on employment-related business issues. (Click here for some of his articles)  He is admitted to practice before the state and federal courts of Alabama and Tennessee.

Please join us in March at our office in Southbridge. We are inviting you to attend this free Lunch and Learn, please click here to email us and we will be sure you get the invitation!  See you on March27th!

Your Workplace is Our Work®

|   Practice |   Attorneys |   Resource Library |   Events |

LMV Webinar Announcement

FEBRUARY 2009

COBRA And Other Things That Bite: Recent Changes Affecting Group Health Plans   March 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. CST

The end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 brought significant new compliance requirements for employers maintaining group health plans.  The COBRA provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provide a temporary governmental subsidy of COBRA premiums for involuntarily terminated employees.  The new law burdens employers with several administrative and notice obligations to facilitate the government subsidy.  Meanwhile, “Michelle’s Law” and the new Mental Health Parity Act – both enacted somewhat quietly in the midst of the current economic woes – also have significant ramifications for group health plans.This one-hour webinar will discuss the new COBRA requirements and the challenges and immediate impact these changes have on employers, including: 1) how the subsidy works, 2) who is eligible, and 3) what employers must do to implement the changes.  We will also cover Michelle’s Law and mental health parity and what changes they require – and what strategic planning we encourage you to begin now in anticipation of 2010.  Throughout the session, participants will be able to submit their questions to the presenters.  However, because time will be tight and we recognize these issues are so important to all of you, we are offering those who register the opportunity to send in advance any questions you are already grappling with, and we will do our best to address those specific questions (anonymously) during the webinar.  To submit questions, please send an e-mail to dbrooks@lehrmiddlebrooks.com. The program has been approved for one hour of HRCI Credit. The registration fee for this webinar is $50 per connection site, with no limit on the number of participating attendees at each site. CLICK HERE TO REGISTER ONLINE

Click here for paper registration

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SourcePointe is a human resources outsourcing firm that provides your company  with “back room” human resources services such as; on-site payroll administration, human resources compliance, benefits administration, online human resources management, and employee performance enhancement.

At SourcePointe, our vision is to be your partner of choice by tailoring strategic and innovative Human Resources solutions that enable you to focus on your core business needs in order to maximize profitability.

We are the choice service organization made up of dedicated local professionals committed to providing proactive Human Resources solutions to our business partners.