Kentucky Workers Comp: An Overview of Things You Should Know

Worker's compensation was designed to provide medical benefits and wage replacement for those injured while employed. It is also designed to protect workers from diseases developed or contracted due to workplace exposure.

Every employer is responsible for providing worker's compensation insurance, or to become self-insured. Certain employees, however, are exempt from this coverage, including: agricultural employees/employers, domestic workers, some religious organizations, and those who voluntarily reject the coverage.

While every employer is responsible for providing coverage, there are certain limitations and rights specific to each state.

Worker's Comp Coverage in Kentucky

In Kentucky, worker's compensation is understood as the "exclusive remedy," which means that the protection received for any sustained injuries forces employees to surrender their right to sue. Employers cannot be penalized by employees in a civil court case. Benefits received can include:   

Partial wage replacement   

Medical treatment coverage, and   

Payment for restoring an injured worker to sufficient employment.

In the case of a death-related injury, employers pay a lump sum towards the employee's estate allowing burial expenses to be paid. This payment amount changes annually, however income benefits are given to the spouse, as well as other surviving dependents.

Because Worker's Compensation can be a disagreeable subject, many disputes are resolved during a compromise settlement involving both parties. If a solution is not determined, parties will have to litigate the claim through a process beginning with an application of claim adjustment, filed under the Department of Worker's Claims. Once this paperwork is complete, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), is assigned to the case to facilitate a benefit review conference.

During the benefit review conference, both parties have the opportunity to discuss the positives and negatives of the case, while working towards a settlement. If the claim does not reach a settlement, a formal hearing will be scheduled within 30 days by the Administrative Law Judge.

After the hearing, a decision must be released within 60 days, either awarding or denying medical benefits or income assistance. The solution may include rehabilitation benefits, if necessary. Through this process, the outcome is determined with the help of witnesses and medical professionals.

As a result, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is unable to require the employer to pay for income benefits in a lump sum. If any party disagrees with the decision, he or she may file an appeal. This goes through the ALJ once again, and if it is appealed further, it may go to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court.

In Kentucky, worker's compensation insurance coverage is issued to every employee in order to remain on the job, and to assist with any work-related medical expenses. For business owners interested in purchasing workers comp insurance, certain agents specialize in offering this product.

Similarly, if you are in need of legal assistance in this area, certain attorneys concentrate on workers compensation litigation. When it comes to workers comp, it is important to understand your rights and responsibilities. Keep in mind that these vary considerably, state by state.

Oral Agreement by Directors of a Company to Share Profit With a Person: Effect of Failure of Company

A (Managing Director) and B were the only registered directors and shareholders of a Nigerian Company. The company decided to increase its business prospects especially in the public sector by involving C who was expected to use both his expertise and political contacts to gain business advantage and expansion for the company. A and B orally agreed with C that profits made by the company shall be shared equally with C and that C would be made a director of the company. On the basis of the said agreement, C contributed greatly in securing a contract for the company which made A commend C's effort vide a letter.

Consequently, C was designated and instructed to act as the Director of Business Development (DBD) of the company and other efforts were begun to ensure that C was made a director of the company as orally agreed by all the parties. But there was never any written resolution passed to make C a director neither was the register of directors of the company amended.

Consequently, the company secured a contract where it made a total profits of N60,000,000 (Sixty Million Naira only). Shockingly, A and B had refused to share the said profits with C.

INTRODUCTION

The scope of this write-up is to: identify the attendant legal issues arising from the scenario; and appraise the identified legal issues in the light of the extant principles of law (statutory and judicial). Also, a brief attempt will be made to advise C on the strength or otherwise of his case.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether C was in law a director of the company.

2. Whether C can be said to be a partner with A and B.

3. Whether C was an employee or worker in the company.

4. Whether C is entitled to share in the income made by the company

LEGAL POSITION ON ISSUES

1. Whether C was in law a director of the company:

Generally, the question of: who is a director of a company is more of a question of law than fact. Section 244 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) describes 'a director of a company registered under this Act is a person duly appointed by the company to direct and manage the business of the company'. Undoubtedly, the directors' roles are as fundamental to the wellbeing of a company just as blood is to the survival of the human body. Perhaps, that is why company statutes all over the world make special provisions about the procedures of appointment and removal of a director.

In the light of the foregoing, one can safely say that C was not a director of the company because he was never validly appointed so. Though, C was designated as a Director of Business Development (DBD) of the company but nothing was done to amend the necessary registers of the company at the Corporate Affairs (CAC) registry. In other words, the designation of C as the DBD without filing necessary amendments in the company's register of directors was a mere expression of intention which was never perfected in law.

2. Whether C can be said to be a partner with A and B:

According to Section 3, of the Partnership Law of Lagos State, partnership is the relationship which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit. From the foregoing statutory definition, one can say a partner is a person who carries on business with such other partners. It is imperative to examine the various statutory rules that determine the nature of partnership. Section 4 of the Partnership Law provides thus:

(a) ''Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, joint property, common property or part ownership does not of itself create a partnership as to anything so held or owned whether the tenants or owners do or do not share any profits made by use thereof.

(b) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself create a partnership whether the persons sharing such returns have or have not a joint or common right or interest in any property from which or from the use of which the returns are derived.

(c) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but receipt of such a share or of a payment contingent on varying with the profits of a business, does not itself make him a partner in the business; and in particular -

(I) the receipt by a person of debt or other liquidated amount by installments or otherwise out of the accruing profits of a business does not of itself make him a partner in the business or liable as such;

(ii) a contract for the remuneration of a servant or agent of a person engaged in a business by a share of the profit of the business does not of itself make the servant or agent a partner in the business or liable as such;... ''From the foregoing, it is clear that partnership is a question of express agreement between the partners because the law will not ordinarily presume the existence of partnership between persons doing business together. It then suffices to say that: a mere contract made with a servant or person for remuneration or sharing of company's profits does not ipso facto make such servant or person a partner.

It is noteworthy to state that C's case falls within the contemplation of Section 4 (c) (ii). The legal implication of this is that C was a servant of the company who was entitled to share out of the income of the company. But he was not a partner in the strict legal sense.

3. Whether C was an employee or worker in the company:

It is imperative to examine first the Labour Law angle of the relationship that existed between the company and C before considering the strict contractual aspect of the relationship. Accordingly, Section 91 of the Labour Act, 'contract of employment' means an ''agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker''.

In the same vein, the Act defines a worker as ''any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour... ''In the case of Iyere v. Bendel Feed & Flour Mill Ltd., the Supreme Court of Nigeria described a contract of employment as follows:''... a contract of employment connotes a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express, or implied, and if it is express, whether it is oral or in writing''.

Hence, C was a worker or an employee of the company because he was indeed working for the company. In other words, there were enough instructions and directions given to C which point to the fact that C was working for and on behalf of the company when he worked as the DBD of the company.

From another point of view, the facts at hand can also be addressed from the strict contractual agreement sense. It is trite in law that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement. In the case of Akanmu v. Olugbode, the Court held as follows:''The elements of a valid contract are offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to enter into legal relations... Once the offer is unconditionally accepted, a valid contract has come into existence''.

Also, in the case of Dragetanos Const. (Nig.) Ltd. v. F.M.V. Ltd & Ors., the Court of Appeal held as follows:''... it is appropriate and necessary to restate the time-honoured principle and ingrained in the Law of Contract that, 'pacta conventa quae neque contra leges neque dolo malo inita sunt, omni modo obsevanda servanda sunt', in order words, contractual agreements which have neither been fraudulently nor illegally entered into by parties, must in all respects be observed or enforced''.

Also, in the case of Nicon Hotels Ltd. v. Nene Dental Clinic Ltd, the Court of Appeal held as follows:''An agreement voluntarily entered into must be honoured in good faith. Equity looks at the intent and not forms and will always impute an intention to fulfill an obligation''In the light of the foregoing, it is safe to assert that a contract can be established between the company and C as evident in the various instructions given to C by A, the Managing Director of the company. Of course, the actions of the parties show clearly that there were offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create a legal relation among all the parties. Hence, the decision of the company and the subsequently joint efforts made by all the parties in securing a contract constitute a subsisting and enforceable contract among the parties.

4. Whether C was entitled to share in the income made by the company:

This issue deals primarily with the determination of remuneration of C. Though, the friendly oral understanding between the parties about profit sharing was not contained in any written 'Profit Sharing Agreement', profits shall be shared equally because parties had orally agreed it to be so shared. However, it is to be noted that there may arise an evidential issue if A and B deny their oral agreement. It is also imperative to add that: assuming without conceding that there was no agreement (oral or written) among A, B and C, equity will still allow C to share in the profits based on C's sweat equity.

Therefore, it is safe to say that C is entitled to his own share of the company's income because of his sweat equity (he contributed actively in the contract from where the company made N60m). It was indeed wrong for A and B to solely convert all the income made by the company.

ADVICE FOR C

In the light of the foregoing, C can either sue for breach of contract of employment, or breach of contract simpliciter which can be deduced from the circumstances of both the actions and relationship of the parties. As answered by the statutory provisions above, the question of what constitutes a contract of employment is a question of law. Of course, the exact remuneration of C is equal proportion with A and C of the total profits made by the company from the contract carried out by A, B and C.

Considerations for the Professional, Breastfeeding Mom

It's already 6:45?! I haven't even packed my pump bag yet!" I scramble to get the diaper bag filled with back up outfits, bottles for my five-month old and a juice box and fruit snacks for my two-year old, all for the fourteen minute drive to daycare.

I finally manage to get boots, coats and hats on, and the girls and their fully stocked diaper bag into the car. Now its 6:55 and I rush back to the kitchen to get the ice packs into the pump cooler pack, fill it with empty pump bottles and shove it into the bag with the pump and all the necessary tubes, flanges and attachments. There's no time for breakfast, so I take a quick gulp of water to try and calm my growling stomach. I rush to the car, start the engine and the green digital clock on the dash confirms; it's 7:05 and I'm officially twenty minutes behind schedule. I curse my pump bag for slowing me down and think how much easier life will be when I don't have to pump anymore. But that thought also makes me a little melancholy; I don't want my youngest to grow up so fast! My two-year old snaps me out of my thought as she shouts "Mommy! Mwah! Go bye-bye!" and I just have to laugh. Well, twenty minutes late is better than thirty minutes late!I'm one of the many working moms that struggle to balance my family life with my work life. I truly enjoy my job as an attorney in the healthcare field. In my current position I'm lucky to be surrounded by other working moms who understand that on most mornings it is next to impossible to be on time. They also understand (because they've each been there) that there will be a few times during the day that I need to step away from my desk to pump. I appreciate my current "pump-friendly" work environment even more because I haven't always been so lucky.

When I had my first child and returned to work following a nine-week maternity leave, I was working in a small financial organization comprised mostly of men in their mid-forties to late fifties. None of them could relate to having young children at home, nor could they understand what was like to balance work life with the demands of a family with two working parents. And when it came to the subject of breastfeeding and pumping, there was absolutely no patience for the time I needed to be away from my desk.

Thankfully, the federal law has recognized the need to set minimum standards for employers in this area. My employer was required to provide me with sufficient break time and a private location (not a bathroom) to pump, and to do so for up to one year following the birth of my child. Generally speaking, any employer covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") is required to provide this reasonable accommodation to nursing, working mothers. If the employer has less than fifty employees and is not subject to the FLSA, they would have to show that compliance with the nursing mothers break time requirement would impose an undue hardship on their business. As with my first employer, who was not subject to the FLSA, I venture to guess it is easier to just provide space and time for pumping than to try and argue an undue hardship. Compliance with the law, however, doesn't mean the professional environment will be friendly to nursing mothers.

When I returned to work after my first child, I was pumping three times during the work day, with one of those times being over the lunch hour. I felt incredible pressure to hurry through each of those pumping sessions, even though I typically needed just 15 minutes each time. Nonetheless, when my then-boss would see me grab my pump bag to head up to the empty office to pump, I could see the general look of annoyance on his face. It was incredibly frustrating to have my professional work and reputation colored (in the eyes of my co-workers) by my choice to breastfeed my baby after returning to work. I felt guilty not being home with my child and guilty for being away from my desk to pump!

Rather than simply tolerate the tension, I broached the subject with my boss and found that much of it stemmed from the fact that there wasn't an understanding of my pumping needs. I chose not to offer a detailed explanation about the mechanics of breast milk supply (we both would have been uncomfortable with that) but instead reviewed with him the actual time I was using to pump, illustrating that altogether it was less than an hour per day. I further pointed out that for me, that hour really was a wash since I had long ago given up taking a proper lunch break. I found that by setting expectations as to my daily (pumping) time needs, and for the breastfeeding timeline in general (I chose to wean at 6 months, which is another highly sensitive topic under which I encourage every mother to do what is right for themselves and their child), we were able to clear up any misconceptions as to my focus while at work.

In light of my experience, I would offer the following recommendations to all working and nursing mothers:

1. Be assertive with your employer as to your space and time needs and remember, the law is on your side;

2. Don't compromise your choice to breastfeed, or your choice to do so for any length of time;

3. Take comfort in the fact that taking time during the work day to pump allows you to maintain the nursing bond with your baby while you're away from home;

4. Whenever possible, pack the diaper bag and your pump bag the night before!

UK Government Wants Businesses to Do More for New Parents

Shared parental leave to level the gender playing fieldAs of 1 December this year, fathers now have the same rights as mothers when it comes to taking leave from work following the birth of a child.

For all babies due after April 2015, employers must offer shared parental leave of up to 50 weeks, rather than the father's usual fortnight.

Fathers use holiday allowance for maternity

In a move that has been warmly welcomed by a generation of working mothers, parents can now choose how to split their paternity leave between them, opening the door to a much more equal division of childcare. Indeed, a recent survey by Mumsnet revealed that, prior to these changes, some 39% of fathers had had to use up paid leave, in order to support their partner and new baby during the postpartum period.

Now, it will be possible for up to 50 weeks' leave and 39 weeks pay to be shared in any combination, aside from a compulsory 2 week period immediately following the birth, which must be taken by the mother. The message, it seems, is getting through: recent research by the outsourcing firm ADP found that up to a third of expectant fathers surveyed plan to take advantage of the new legislation.

Shared parenting rights

There is little doubt, however, that a cultural sea-change in attitudes will not happen overnight. Employers are concerned about the effect these changes will have on their work forces and fathers fear losing money and status if they leave their jobs for months on end.

The Scandinavian model, however, is proof that shared parenting rights can become the norm when government and businesses are working together. In Sweden, Norway and Iceland, a percentage of leave is reserved exclusively for fathers at around 80% of their salary; the so-called "Daddy quota."Far from creating pressures, the head of one of Norway's biggest employment associations affirms that it, in fact, "strengthens the man's position in the family and the woman's in the workplace".

In order for the new laws to make a real difference here, therefore, the Government is calling upon employers to take positive steps: making employees aware of their rights, aligning notice periods for pay and leave to make the system simpler and maintaining the right for parents to return to the same job after their leave.

In return, they can expect to gain from a system which allows them to keep talented women in the workforce and have a more motivated and productive staff as a whole.

Injured on the Job? Three Questions for Your Construction Accident Lawyer

Construction work is widely known as very dangerous work. You may be required to work with heavy equipment or climb atop high scaffolding to get the job done. If you ever suffer from a work-related injury, there are many options that you have in order to be made financially whole. A construction accident lawyer can work with you and your employer to get the maximum amount of money that you will need to pay for your expenses as well as any other costs that stem from your injury. Here are some questions you may have about the process.

Is Workers' Compensation an Option?

Just like working for any other industry, people with injuries suffered on a construction site are entitled to be covered by workers' compensation. Workers' compensation pays for your medical expenses and lost wages while you are recovering from your injury. It will also pay you for a period of time if you are permanently disabled due to the injury you received. It requires you to prove that you were hurt in the course of completing an act at your job. There is a limitation on how much you will receive, however. This is because this program is very clear-cut and requires no outside litigation, saving the company money.

What if Workers' Compensation Isn't Enough?

In the event you are hurt so severely that you are out of work for an extended period of time, or even permanently, your construction accident lawyer may advise you to sue your employer on top of receiving other benefits. Your ability to bring a civil lawsuit against your company will be dependent upon the circumstances of your injury as well as the state you live in. The nature of construction work provides many possible liable parties that could be a part of your injury. Your injury could stem from an architect's faulty design or from an engineering oversight. When there are multiple entities that are potentially liable, a construction accident lawyer will work to find out who is responsible in order to initiate a lawsuit.

Can an Equipment Manufacturer be Held Responsible?

Some injuries may not be caused by a person or group of people on the job site, but by faulty equipment. If this happens, you can sue the manufacturer of that piece of equipment to help pay for your damages. This lawsuit will be deemed a product liability lawsuit rather than personal injury or negligence. You would be required to prove that the piece of equipment was in bad condition or dangerous when it left the manufacturer. You will also be required to provide proof that you were using the piece of equipment in the correct manner.

The nature of this work is inherently dangerous, but you are still entitled to a safe workplace free from hazard. You should contact your construction accident lawyer as soon as you are injured to ensure that you receive any and all benefits that are rightly owed to you.

3 Common Employment Law Questions Answered

Sometimes employment law can be difficult to comprehend. Here are three common work place situations and their legal ramifications.

1: DISMISSAL DUE TO ILLNESS

There are three potential areas of legal exposure:

· unfair dismissal;

· unlawful termination; and

· discrimination

From time to time an employee will have to leave your employment due to long term health issues. They may decide to resign or you may have to eventually consider dismissing them. It is beneficial to consider as many ways possible to help them back to work - dismissal should be a last resort and could be deemed unfair if not managed properly.

If continued employment is no longer achievable because there are no reasonable adjustments that can be made, it may be fair for you to dismiss them.

The Fair Work Act 2009 states that an employer must not dismiss an employee because the employee is temporarily absent from work due to illness or injury.

The Fair Work Regulation 2009 provides that it is not a "temporary absence" if the employees absence from work extends for more than 3 months, or the total absences of the employee, within a 12 month period, have been more than 3 months. The employer still requires a valid reason to dismiss the employee, even if the employee has been absent on unpaid leave for three months or over.

We suggest you ask the employee to provide medical information on his capacity for work and what support he might need to return to work.

2: EVIDENCE OF ILLNESS

You can insist on employees providing evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person that they are entitled to sick leave, for example, a medical certificate or statutory declaration. That being said there is no specific timeframe as the timeframe required is "as soon as practicable".

For this reason you should devise a written policy that stipulates that your employees provide such information within a specific timeframe. Your policy should also specify that your employees inform their manager directly of their absence (when possible), or phone their manager within a certain timeframe to explain why they cannot make it to work and when they expect to return.

3: NOTICE OF REDUNDANCY

When dismissing an employee it is necessary to give them notice. The notice commences when the employer tells the employee that they want to end the employment. If you notify them of their redundancy just before leave, the time spent on annual leave will count towards their notice period.

OPM Federal Disability Retirement and the Other Federal Programs

The concept behind Federal Disability Retirement is a simple one: Given a level of proof, the disability should attach only to the extent of the specific job which a person cannot do; otherwise, the Federal or Postal employee should, upon being approved for Federal OPM Disability Retirement benefits, be allowed to remain productive in some alternate capacity, so that he or she may continue to contribute to the social welfare of the country as a whole.

Social Security Disability, in contrast to Federal Disability Retirement benefits submitted and approved by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, provides that one is essentially considered to be disabled not only from the regular profession or job which you engaged in immediately before being determined to be disabled but, further, you cannot do other kinds of jobs because of your medical condition. Thus, the great distinction between Federal Disability Retirement benefits for the Federal or Postal Worker, and Social Security Disability, is the capacity and ability to work at another, different kind of job other than the one you are found to be disabled from. Of course, Federal and Postal employees who file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, who are under the Federal Employees Retirement System, must also file for Social Security Disability benefits, anyway. That is just part of the administrative process of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, because if you are approved for both Federal Disability Retirement benefits and for Social Security Disability benefits, there is a coordination of benefits between the two programs - an "offset" of 100% for the first year, then a 60% offset every year thereafter.

Then, of course, there is always the consideration that must be given to the Office of Workers' Compensation benefits, administered through the Department of labor, under the aegis of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. This type of benefit is known as the "work-related" injury, where the wide panoply of issues concerning causality, what constitutes an injury or occupational disease as being "caused" by work, or occurring at work, and whether and to what extent such a work-related injury or occupational disease is compensable through the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Often, work-related, compensable injuries are temporary in duration, and the whole point is to try and rehabilitate the injured worker, to compensate as the law allows, and to restore the Federal or Postal employee to one's former job, work capacity and continuing livelihood.

These are the major tripartite compensation programs for all Federal and Postal employees, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under the Federal Employees Retirement System, the Civil Service Retirement System, or the hybrid and odd one, the Civil Service Retirement System - Offset. Are there differences between the three? Certainly. Moreover, such differences should be taken into consideration because of the overlapping features of all three. For, while all three are independently determined, they can also impact each other in significant ways.

First, one should clearly understand that the Worker's Compensation program is not a retirement system. Instead, it is a system meant primarily to return the Federal or Postal worker back to work, and to temporarily compensate the Federal or Postal Worker during the period of recuperation from a disease or injury. Second, a Federal or Postal worker who is receiving temporary total disability through the Office of Workers' Compensation Program cannot concurrently work at another job (with some exceptions concerning second or part-time jobs which the person had already been working at before becoming injured or disabled). On the other hand, a person who is receiving a Federal Disability Retirement annuity through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is allowed to go out and get a job in the private sector, while still receiving the disability annuity. The income earned in the private sector should be based upon a different profession or line or work, in significant and distinguishable ways, from the job which the Federal or Postal worker was doing while working for the Federal government or the U.S. Postal Service. Additionally, the amount you make cannot exceed 80% of what one's former position as a Federal employee or U.S. Postal Worker currently pays. Conversely, while some monies can be earned while receiving Social Security Disability, the ceiling is quite low and one needs to be careful not to exceed the low ceiling of allowable earned income.

Third, it is important to understand that if a Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker gets both Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management approved, along with Social Security Disability benefits, there is a coordination of benefits, considered as an "offset" feature. This is how it works: in the first year of concurrent benefits received, where Federal Disability Retirement benefits are calculated at 60% of the average of one's highest three consecutive years of service, there is a 100% offset between Social Security Disability and Federal Disability Retirement benefits. Since Social Security disability benefits are considered primary, you would therefore receive the full Social Security disability check, and 100% of that would be deducted from the Federal Disability Retirement annuity check. Every year thereafter, where the Federal Disability Retirement annuity is reduced to reflect 40% of the average of one's highest three consecutive years of service, there is a 60% offset or reduction of benefits.

In receiving both Social Security disability benefits and Federal Disability Retirement benefits, you should be extremely careful, because if you are receiving the full annuity from both sources, it means that the Office of Personnel Management is overpaying you. It will also mean that, sometime in the near future, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management will demand repayment for any amounts not having been offset between Federal Disability Retirement benefits and Social Security Disability benefits. Pleading ignorance or inability to pay are normally not valid bases upon which to stop repayment actions. As such, if after informing the Office of Personnel Management about the overpayment, no action to reduce the Federal Disability Retirement benefits is taken, you should still set aside the appropriate amount of monies in anticipation of receiving a future demand for repayment.

Retirement is a major life-changing event; early, self-induced retirement resulting from the occurrence of an injury, medical condition, disease or occupational occurrence, can further be a traumatic life-changing event, precisely because it was never anticipated, and certainly unplanned. While such life changes are stressful by the very nature of being unanticipated, this does not mean that one should forego obtaining as much knowledge or understanding the complex intricacies of the intersecting impact potentially resulting from the benefits available. Federal and Postal employees have many tools and resources available, but such benefits and compensable programs remain latent and inaccessible if left untapped. While major life events such as unanticipated medical conditions impacting one's livelihood and the ability to continue in one's career may provoke sudden changes in plans, such unplanned events need not result in unwise courses of actions; and knowing the benefits available, the interaction between the benefits, and the impact of filing for Federal Disability Retirement annuity, Social Security benefits, and even Federal Workers' Compensation payments, will provide a greater framework for one's financial security well into the future.

The Number One Reason Companies And Supervisors Lose Lawsuits Brought By Employees

The most important legal conversation supervisors need to have, is with their human resources department concerning the subject of proper documentation. This is an area where supervisors cannot afford to get things wrong. When you are ordered into court to answer and defend yourself against a lawsuit brought by one an employee, your documentation cannot have holes in it. The number one reason companies and their supervisors lose lawsuits brought by employees is, shoddy documentation and shoddy record keeping.

And this will not change anytime soon, because managers and supervisors simply will not take the time to

(1) understand the importance of properly documenting on the job incidents and events as they occur and then,

(2) actual documenting those incident s and events. Once managers and supervisor step foot inside that courtroom to answer charges levied against them, they are held to a much higher standard, than if they were just another employee.

Play Offense Not Defense

Your documentation of the event in question, whether it is sexual harassment, age discrimination, gender discrimination, or any other incident, looms large in that courtroom. The attorney for the employee who is suing will systematically attempt to dismantle what the supervisor says, so your documentation is the best offense you have in a lawsuit, and it is the only defense you have in a court of law. What this means is, managers and supervisors must take the time to document every incident that happens on their watch. Remember; every document you handle as a supervisor can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Taking the - when go to court - approach to documentation ensures that ample time is given to preserve dates, timelines, people involved, and what was said and done, before, during, and after the incident in question. This is an effective offensive strategy. Conversely, an - if we go to court - approach to documentation places little importance on preservation of this important documentation. With this approach, the managers believe if it ever goes to court, that they will be able to remember events and times, and simply explain things away. Of course you can imagine these are managers who have never been in a court of law.

Not the Place to Go To School

Come into court without solid documentation and you will fight an uphill battle to win your case against that employee. There are three laws when it comes to documenting;

(1) document everything,

(2) document everything and

(3) document everything. Follow the three laws of documentation to the letter, and you will be among the rarest of managers and supervisors who come into court to answer charges brought by an employee; a manager who wins their case.

Why So Many Supervisors Are Getting Sued In Record Numbers

The number of lawsuits being won against supervisors in this country is absolutely staggering. We have entered a new age of litigation. The average payout in an employee lawsuit filed against an organization is a jaw dropping $750,000. So why are supervisors continuing to be sued in record numbers in this country? As a corporate trainer and business consultant to hundreds of businesses across the United States over the past 22 years, here is my take on seven lucrative areas attorneys are finding unlimited fodder to feed this ever-growing monster called employee litigation.

1. Companies Not Providing Training. In my many years of experience, this area (bar none), ranks as the number one reason for employee lawsuits. When a supervisor does not know, or disregards the laws which govern managing people, they are doomed to failure. It is not fair what companies do to supervisors in this country. They thrust them into leadership roles, without properly training them on employee laws and the liabilities they may incur when they violate these laws.

2. Sexual Harassment Not Taken Seriously. One would think that this would not even be an issue today, but it is. Too many of today's supervisors think that sexual harassment laws do not apply to them. They believe that they can say, and do whatever they chose, because they will not be held accountable. This is one of the quickest and easiest ways for supervisors to ruin their career, and put up to a three-quarters of a million dollars in an employee's pocket.

3. Thinking Retaliation is No Big Deal. The alarming number of cases brought before the EEOC for retaliation (in one year) jumped a whopping 23 percent (from the year 2007 to 2008) and these numbers continue to spike. View it from this prospective. If you held a stock and it jumped 23% in one year, you would be ecstatic. This is a legal area that has attorneys dancing in the streets.

4. Documentation that is Terrible. One law every supervisor should learn as part of basic supervisor training is the law concerning "spoliation." This law governs written communications, and this word alone implies that documents have been spoiled. This is a must know among supervisors.

5. Supervisors Not Guarding Employee Private Information. Supervisors are privy to some of the company's most highly guarded secrets. They have access to protected information on employees such as Social Security Numbers, Dates of Birth, family information, bank accounts, all the way to damaging medical information. This information must be protected under the law.

6. Age Law Trampled Upon. The age law of 1967, which falls under Title VII, is often misunderstood and just plain trampled on in today's workplace. And for untrained and unsuspecting supervisors, it is an expressway to disaster. Age related jokes and bias behavior is costing companies millions of dollars each year.

7. Unlawful Questions During Interviews. The laws are clear. Supervisors can't ask potential employees any and everything they choose. There are strict guidelines as to what questions can and cannot be asked during an interview. Problem is, most supervisors don't know the difference between the two. It is time to find out.

One Sure Bet Attorneys Make Against Organizations and Win Nearly Every Time

One sure bet attorneys make against organizations and their supervisors, and win that bet nearly every time is this; that organizations won't have a robust system for keeping track of the key documents they will need to defend themselves in a court of law. The bet also includes a belief that organizations have neither written policies, nor have they formally trained supervisors on proper documentation and record keeping. The danger for organizations is, even after leaving, an employee can still opt to file a lawsuit against the organization anywhere from 1 to 3 years in the future, or maybe longer, depending on the allegations.

To succeed against an employee lawsuit, courts require that your supervisors present documents that will prove that they did not do what the employee is claiming. And this you must understand; the burden of prove is on the supervisor and the organization, not the employee. What is the best path to success? Your documentation. This is why having a robust document retention (DR) program, backed up by solid policies, is absolutely critical in today's workplaces.

Maintain These Records

The list of records that must be protected at all times include virtually any and all documents supervisors handle in connection with their job. These documents include, but is not limited to; performance reviews, employee write-ups, supervisor termination notes, safety records, hazardous material records, training records, compliance records, records concerning altercations between employees, progressive disciple documents, all the way to time sheets, as well as documents pertaining to the organization's incentive programs. And depending on which agency the organization has to report to, there are specific number of years that certain records must be kept, such as payroll records, IRS tax records, and records submitted to the Department of Transportation.

Key Strategies

Here are five key strategies every organization should immediately initiate to protect themselves against the onslaught of employee lawsuits sweeping the nation. The organization should have a system that

(1) creates,

(2) maintains,

(3) stores,

(4) retrieves, and

(5) properly disposes of all documents associated with their business. Supervisors should receive continuous training on records keeping policies, and get briefed on how long documents must be maintained.

HAZWOPER Training for Hospital Staff

The OSHA HAZWOPER standard requires that workers are trained to complete their work without endangering themselves or others. The first step in compliance with the HAZWOPER standard is to complete an assessment of the hazards in the workplace and community and what will be required of your staff to respond to such hazards.

In a standard interpretation letter to St. John's Mercy Medical Center, OSHA states, if decontamination of patients is required in the hospital, prior to hospital staff treating the patients, then the hospital staff "must be trained to the first responder operations level with emphasis on the use of PPE (personal protective equipment) and decontamination procedures."The first responder operations level training requirement is as follows:

1) First responders must have knowledge of the basic hazard and risk assessment techniques.

2) They must know how to select and use proper personal protective equipment.

3) They must have an understanding of basic hazardous materials terms.

4) First responders should know how to perform basic control, containment and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personal protective equipment available with their unit.

5) They must know how to implement basic decontamination procedures.

6) First responders must have an understanding of the relevant standard operating procedures and termination procedures.

The training requirement for first responder operations level is eight hours. Operational level first responders are trained to respond to a hazardous chemical release defensively, to contain hazardous substance release, but not actually stop it. Therefore it is the hospital's responsibility to ensure emergency department staff is trained to the above requirements. It is also the hospital's responsibility to create a plan to handle such cases and maximize employee safety during decontamination of patients.

However, hospital workers are not only exposed to hazardous chemicals when treating patients for hazardous chemical exposure. Nurses, physicians and other staff can come into contact with hazardous drugs while treating patients, such as Anti-neoplastic or chemotherapy drugs. Again, it is the hospital's responsibility to create a program to minimize the possibility of accidental exposure to hazardous drugs to ensure employee safety.

The first step to ensuring employee safety while handling hazardous substances is to implement a written hazard communication program. Existing hazard communication programs should be updated to the new Global Harmonization Standard (GHS).

There are six steps to implementing a hazard communication program:

1) Learn the standard/ identify responsible staff

2) Prepare and implement a written hazard communication program

3) Ensure containers are labeled

4) Maintain safety data sheets

5) Inform and train employees

6) Evaluate and reassess your programHazard communication programs should be implemented hospital-wide. However, for staff who come into contact with hazardous drugs, additional programs should be put into place. Employees should be trained in the proper handling, preparation, administration, storing and disposal of hazardous drugs. Those who are caring for patients who have been treated with hazardous drugs should also be trained with universal precautions, in accordance with the blood borne pathogens standard.

Discrimination and Employment Law

Many people with Epilepsy complete a good education and go on to have a productive career. This can be in many areas. This depends on the person, their condition, circumstance's and of course their motivation. People with Epilepsy can work in many different occupations, but this is sometimes limited due to safety or the ability to drive.

Employers may give reasons for not hiring a person with Epilepsy. These may be the likes of your safety and the safety of others, the company's liabilities, concerns you won't perform and your ability to deal with the public. Producing an income is important for many reasons, such as self-esteem and supporting yourself and a family. Many people with Epilepsy work and positions are initially open to people with the condition.

Overall, there is no difference in job performance and productivity between workers with Epilepsy and others. Studies have shown that behavior, productivity of employees with Epilepsy is as good as or better than others. Accident rates are lower!! This comes from a motivation to work hard and prove that they are worthy of the workplace.

 Should they tell their employer?

That's a difficult decision, really up to the person seeking employment. Will your Epilepsy have an effect on your employment? If your employer and work mates know about your Epilepsy, it is easily understood. If they do not want to hire you because of your Epilepsy, maybe they wouldn't have been the best person to work for. Does your employment require a driver's license, or is it just about getting to work each day.

There is always public transport, friends and work mates. So much with Epilepsy comes back to fear of the word EPILEPSY, or a general misunderstanding. 95% of the time things may be just fine. That depends on how severe your Epilepsy is and what type you have. But, if you have found an employer that can see past that small part of you, you're on your way to employment. If you have the qualifications, skills, and experience your on your way. If you're a hard worker with a good attitude, you are headed in the right direction.

An employer will generally ask about your health, so that is a good time to mention Epilepsy. Everyone is a health risk in some ways. Anyone could have a heart attack at any time. There is no warning of that, just like there is sometimes no warning of a seizure. But, everyone you are working with can know you have Epilepsy.

Large Settlements Show California Businesses Need to Be More Aware of Meal Break Laws

Recently, the city of Los Angeles finalized a $26-million legal settlement for claims that they prohibited naps and placed other restrictions on the city's trash truck drivers' meal break periods. And this week, Fedex settled a class action lawsuit for $2.1 million in response to claims these laws had been violated.When a city as large as Los Angeles and a company as big as FedEx have trouble following the law, it's important to carefully consider the way meal and rest breaks are handled in your workplace. There are several different aspects of California business law that employers and employees should be aware of including: what constitutes a proper meal break, waivers, exceptions to the general rule, and filing a wage complaint.

In general, California employers must provide employees who work more than five hours in a shift with a meal period.

In California the requirements are that the employee be relieved of all duty, the employer relinquishes control over the employees activities, the break must last for 30 consecutive minutes, and the employee is not be discouraged from taking the break. Also important is the timing: in a normal 8 hour shift, the meal period must be provided before the sixth hour of work

Note: A common problem occurs when meal period is interrupted by phone calls from other employees, managers or supervisors asking for their assistance. This violates California labor law since the employee does not get 30 consecutive minutes.


A meal break waiver is only allowed in limited circumstances. Employers and employees may mutually agree to waive a meal break it the employee's shift is six hours or less. Although it's not required it is recommended to document the waiver in writing every time a meal period is waived.Remember: If the employee works 6 or more they must be provided a meal break even if they have signed a waiver.

In very limited circumstances in California, an employer and employee can agree to receive on-duty meal breaks. The employer and employee must have a signed agreement that the employee can revoke at any time, the employee must get a chance to eat while on-duty, and 'the nature of the work' must prevent the employee from being relieved of all duty. Whether 'nature of the work' prevents the employee from being relieved of all duty is determined by looking at the type of work, the availability of other employees to provide coverage, and whether the product or service will be destroyed or damaged by the 30 minute break.Important: Consult with an employment attorney before deciding to conduct on-duty meal breaks. The courts and labor commission scrutinize these arrangements.In California, if an employee feels their meal break rights have been violated they can file a wage claim with the State Labor Commissioner's Office in addition to the United States Department of Labor. They may file a civil action on behalf of him or herself as well as others who are similarly situated.Note: Careful consideration should be used when deciding to file a case in the California Superior Court or filing an administrative complaint. There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

A Civil Lawyer Can Help You Get Through the Issues Related to the Violations of the Civil Law

The violations of human and civil rights are often occurring in several parts of the world. The other day, I read a newspaper where it was mentioned that a 23-year-old committed suicide because of the discriminative behavior, he was going through in his working organization in the New York city. Discrimination of any kind or bullying is the two crimes that can have a negative impact on the behavior, mind and heart of a person that disturbs the law and order of any state and may lead a person to take actions that are not ethical. If the deceased knew about the human rights and civil law of the country, he would have fought to overcome the problem rather than committing suicide.

Civil disobedience is a real problem of any nation, and our judicial system must be adequate to control restricted activities within the workplace. Violations of laws, except concerning the criminal activities comes under the civil lawsuit of any country. Any civil lawyers handle lawsuits that are related to an individual, business houses or the government. Whether the injustice is happening in the workplace or any other part of the country, the victim can file a case against the other party that has been the reason behind the mess.

For filing any such suit that is against the parameters of human rights, it is always better to speak to the nearest civil lawyer who is experienced and can prove to be an excellent guide to help you in resolving the issue.

What can a civil lawyer do?

• Need assistance related to income tax laws? Your civil lawyer is the best person to meet who specializes in the tax laws of the country and can inform you about every intricate detail related to the tax laws of the state.

• Have you met an accident and seeking a law to cover damages? Meet a civil lawyer holds a specialty in personal injury lawsuit. You will surely be able to recover the loss you went through after meeting an accident.

• If you are no more happy with your married life and want to get out of this institution, you will indeed seek to divorce. A family lawyer can help you get through this troubled phase of life and will help you to get divorced by letting you get fair compensation before divorce. Even if you are seeking for the custody of your child after your break up, a family lawyer can advise you on the matter.

• A good corporate civil lawyer can help you to get a good business advice to cover up all the expenses associated with litigation that are very expensive. Not only that, a corporate lawyer advises you on the licenses and formalities that are required for the smooth running of your business.


• A good employment lawyer is one of those best people to consult when you are going through an appalling phase in your life and has been a victim of workplace discrimination, unfair wages, sexual assault in the workplaces and the issues related to overtime. Violations of any such rules are against the human rights and must not be overlooked. It is imperative that the sufferer must closely seek the situation and find a foolproof solution to the problem by filing a lawsuit against the guilty.

Civil lawyers hold accreditation from the licensed Law schools of their countries and must clear all the important exams of the country's law board.

Just What Is A Hostile Work Environment?

We have all heard the term "hostile work environment", but do you know what it means? Unless you are an attorney, you may not quite understand everything that constitutes a hostile environment under the law. The problem is that many people need to learn what this means and why it matters to you as an employee. A hostile work environment creates a liability on the employer's part for employee lawsuits, harassment claims, and other legal issues. On top of these serious problems, it can also lead to lower productivity, a high turnover rate, and very unhappy employees. Let's take a look at what makes an environment hostile and what can be done about it.

To begin with, let's go through some of the areas that do not make up a hostile work environment. Most people think that a hostile environment includes things like a rude coworker, a mean supervisor, or a single incident. However, these areas do not make a work environment hostile. The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, lists a hostile work environment as the following:

Involving "unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information"; orIt occurs when "enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment" or the conduct creates a workplace environment "that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive."Now that you have read what the EEOC says defines a hostile work environment, let's take a look at what that actually means to you as an employee.

Here are some general examples of offensive conduct in the workplace:   

Offensive jokes - including racial or sexual jokes,   

Name calling - including racial slurs, epithets, and other offensive names,   

Physical threats or assaults based on race, color, sex, etc,   

Intimidation because of race, color, sex, etc,   

Ridicule or mocking of any person in the workplace based on race, sex, color, etc,    Insults and put downs based on color, race, sex, etc,   

Offensive pictures and objects based on sex, race, color, etc.

All of these items constitute a hostile work environment and can be on the part of a coworker, supervisor, agents of the employer, or even non-employees, such as a vendor or customer. The conduct may not always be offensive to the employee or person that it is directed towards, but it may be offensive to the people or employees around that observe the actions.

The very best way to ensure that you are not contributing to a hostile work environment is to take an active role in preventing any of these areas on your part as an employee. If you have concerns or feel unsafe or offended in any way, go through the proper channels at your workplace to report them to a supervisor and document any issues, threats, problems, or other offensive behavior when it happens.

Drugs and Alcohol Awareness Program at Your Workplace

The modern workplaces can surprisingly hold reasons and solutions to a lot of psychological and stress-related problems. More often than not, it is the misuse of drugs or alcohol which silently lead towards mishaps, absenteeism and fatal accidents among working professionals.

Over the years, employers in many organizations are increasingly aware of the need for a drug and alcohol management program for their employees. Though many companies and business enterprises have usually tried hiring counselors and therapists occasionally, they are now discovering the need for a continuous and effective awareness programs for their employees.

Most business organizations and workplaces tend to organize awareness programs for their employees. An education and awareness program can play a crucial role in reducing and preventing drug and alcohol related incidents at your workplace. Here's what you can expect from these programs.

The programs include sessions by expert trainers who talk about drug testing and alcohol testing. Employers as well as employees are part of the special sessions that witness interaction, counseling and of course, education about drug and alcohol abuse.

The program aims to give information about health and safety implications of drug and alcohol use at the workplace and in the society. The trainers encourage discussions about employee participation. The sessions also involve removing misconceptions about the about the company's drug and alcohol management policy and testing programs.

Trainers also bridge the gap between employers and employees when it comes to talking about accepting the testing programs. This is important because many employers find it awkward about speaking with their employees and vice verse about drug and alcohol abuse.

At times, it is necessary to involve the family of the employees too. Management experts constantly send updates to employers. Such feedback is necessary when employees need not just counseling but medical help and rehabilitation.

Awareness programs can also include sampling, testing and drug & alcohol management techniques to help employees deal with accepting and overcoming their problems.

Most modern workplaces are employee friendly but most employees hardly ever interact face to face because they are so glued on to their gadgets. It is important to prevent employees from self-medication using medical websites on the Internet. It is also important that they get the right kind of therapy, counseling and care from experts. For all this, employees must follow the right drug and alcohol testing techniques. The right changes at the right time can help them lead a happier and healthier life. After all, life is definitely beautiful enough to give it another chance!

Why Your Workplace Needs Drug and Alcohol Testing

Modern workplaces have shown emergence of drug and alcohol misuse by employees both within and outside their offices. It will not be wrong to say that almost every workplace accounts for at least a couple of incidences related to drug and alcohol abuse. It is for this reason, that every workplace must have a drug and alcohol testing program. But it is not enough only to test employees for such substances. It is important to educate them and make them aware of the negative results of addiction too.

Drug and alcohol management therapies form the next stage of the drug management programs initiated by employers for their employees. It is quite encouraging to see business organizations striving to make their workplaces secure and drug and alcohol free.

Here we must be aware that we are not discussing use of drugs and alcohol at the workplace alone. Of course, this kind of behavior by an employee can have serious repercussions. Besides the possibility of injuring himself, the employee can hurt or injure others in the vicinity too. There is also the danger of causing harm or being injured if the employee who is under influence is operating any heavy machinery. More often than not, the reason for accidents and mishaps at factories and workplaces and sites is an employee who is working under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Most employees refrain from consuming drugs and alcohol at their workplaces. However, they are not stopping themselves when they are out of their workplaces. It is not enough if an employee does not use alcohol at the workplace. It is important that he keeps away from it even when away from work.

Going beyond drug testing, drug management programs can educate employees about why they need to take control of their lives. They are counseled by experts and also sent for medical examination to detect any health problems they may be facing due to drug and alcohol abuse.

The business owner or employer may have spent years building up a good reputation. But one small incident can tarnish the reputation of a business organization. That is why t is important for employers to be aware of their employees' behavior. A good drug and alcohol testing management program takes care that the privacy of both the employer and the employee in question is now jeopardized.

Your employees make your organization what it is. They deserve a safe environment. In the same way, your clients, associates and visitors to your workplace must feel good about coming to visit you.

PBGC Issues Dire Forecast on Growing Deficit of Multi-Employer Plans

Although the financial outlook of single-employer pension plans and programs is expected to improve, the state of the country's multi-employer plans (MEP) is at a crucial tipping point. The pension benefits of more than 10 percent of MEP participants are in peril, potentially affecting more than one million people.

That was the grim warning recently issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) as a result of findings in its annual FY 2013 Projections Report (formerly known as the "Exposure Report").

Through an actuarial evaluation pulled from hundreds of economic scenarios, the Projections Report is able to estimate and project the future well-being of private pension plans and their effect on PBGC's financial stability in the future.

Projections of Faltering Multi-Employer Plans

The PBGC attributes the diminishing funds of MEPs to a variety of reasons including two recessions, industry consolidation and an aging workforce."Despite the improving economy and strong asset returns in 2013, some already distressed plans remain critically underfunded and will not be able to further raise contributions or reduce benefits sufficiently to avoid insolvency," the agency said in a news release.

Key projections found in the report include:

• Insolvencies may affect more than 1 million of the 10.4 million beneficiaries in multi-employer plans

• Insolvencies of distressed multi-employer plans will be "more likely and more imminent"

• Failures of these plans will drain PBGC of its assets in the program and render it broke and unable to pay guaranteed benefits to MEP members

• The likelihood of PBGC running out of multi-employer plan program funds is possible in eight years and most likely within 10 years

• The multi-employer program's FY 2013 deficit of $8.3 billion will widen to, on average, $49.6 billion by FY 2023 if failures continue and no significant changes are made with the law or by increasing premiumsNew Methodology Leads to New Numbers

The risk of the PBGC running out of money has not only increased, but projections are actually worse (higher) than last year's forecast. For example, according to the 2012-based report, there was a 36 percent chance of insolvency by 2022. Yet for the same period in the 2013-based report, the projected risk of insolvency jumped to 59 percent. Why?

The worsening prognosis of multi-employer plans can be explained by a new methodology the PBGC applied to assess and estimate liabilities.

An external peer review was made on the PBGC's projection methodology and, as a result, several recommendations were made to update the older evaluation model to "reflect a more current understanding about the actual experience of multi-employer pension plans."These updates included a revised outlook on the number of plan participants in the future, the rate of future plan contributions, and also took into account that some multi-employer plans have not adopted legally available contribution increases and benefit adjustments because they decided that they were not feasible.

In the End, Significant Benefit Reductions"Virtually all of our projections show a significant worsening of PBGC's financial position over the next 10 years," the report concludes.

For participants in failed plans, this means significant benefit reductions under the PBGC's current guarantee program.

The PBGC multi-employer guarantees are much lower than those in its single-employer program. Typically, participants in a failed multi-employer program receive about $13,000 a year. Then again, PBGC charges companies in those plans an annual insurance premium of only $12 per plan participant, less than one-fourth of what other pension plans pay.

If projections pan out and the PBGC itself becomes insolvent, then guarantees will be cut much further.

The PBGC hopes its report will compel Congress to take action including giving it the authority to raise premiums. But that is open to debate as a group of trade associations, professional organizations and companies came out with a study in May that contends increases in premiums would translate into a big hit to the economy-worth billions of dollars-and cost an average of 42,000 jobs a year.

In any event, Congress is walking a tightrope as voters don't want to fund bailouts or provide safety-net programs, and retirees don't want to suffer forced and painful benefit cuts.

Employee Benefits

In order to draw the most talented people to the organization, companies will often offer compensation in the form of employee benefits. Benefits can be a good deal to both the company and the employee. While benefits are usually taxed, they're generally taxed at a much lower rate than straight cash. In addition, employers can sometimes write off benefits in a way that they can't write off employee wages.

Benefit packages usually cost companies less than their actual value. This is because a company with many employees will buy the benefits in bulk and thus get better deals. Individual employees often prefer to be compensated with benefits rather than wages, because the services would cost them more to buy individually.

Some examples of the types of benefits are:

Health Insurance: Companies have long offered health insurance as part of their benefit packages on account of the fact that almost everyone has a need for it, and it's quite expensive to buy individually but can be purchased relatively cheaply when bought as part of a group plan. It benefits the company because healthy employees are more productive than sick employees.

Sick Leave/ Vacation Days: Paid time off is easy for companies to offer, because it comes in the form of the employee's normal wages, minus a few days of productivity. Time off has actually been shown in some studies to increase productivity and reduce company costs, because employee sickness and stress have costs for the company. For example, employees who don't have paid sick days will often choose to come in to work sick, possibly spreading their illness through the building, resulting in a large loss of productivity.

Housing: This is sometimes a benefit for executives and other workers with scarce, in-demand skills who have to relocate in order to take a job. Providing some form of housing, either in the form of a company apartment or rent voucher has ease the employee's transition and make them more committed to the company. Also, agricultural producers will sometimes hire seasonal migrant workers and house them in dormitories that they own or rent out so their labor supply remains in place throughout the season.

Childcare: With many women choosing to have both children and a career, companies have responded by offering onsite childcare.

Tuition Reimbursement: In order to maintain a workforce that is up to date on the latest advancements in their fields, a number of companies are offering tuition reimbursements so their employees can take classes while they work.

Profit Sharing: Stock options and other profit sharing schemes encourage the employee to invest their best work into the company to ensure that their shares will be more profitable. This can be one of the more lucrative employee benefits, as the stock of a company that does well during the employee's tenure can sometimes double or triple in value.

Retirement Contributions: Companies will sometimes match the employee's 401K contribution as a form of compensation. This is beneficial because companies don't have to pay taxes on what they contribute and the account is tax deferred for the employee.

PBGC Changes Multi-Employer Plan Regulations to Ease Burdens on Plans and Sponsors

Acting now to help multi-employer plans function proficiently in the future, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) recently announced amendments to existing regulations placed on multi-employer plans. These changes aim to reduce administrative costs and preserve assets by: making plans and their sponsors more effective and efficient; reducing regulatory burdens; and facilitating plan merger transactions.

The agency published its final rule on May 28, 2014 in the Federal Register. These revisions, which become effective on June 27, 2014, also impact the regulatory actions on annual valuations, insolvency notices and updates. The final rule has not changed from the proposed rule the agency set forth on January 28, 2014.

Valuations for Mass Withdrawals May Not Be Needed Annually

When a multi-employer plan terminated under the existing regulations, a mandatory annual valuation of the plan's assets and benefits had to be performed to determine whether the plan had to exclude benefits that were not eligible for the PBGC's guarantee.

Now, under the amended rule, valuations for plans terminated by mass withdrawal may occur every three years if:

• that plan is not insolvent

• the value of non-forfeitable plan benefits is $25 million or less

To comply with ERISA, the final rule allows these plans to use the most recently performed valuation for the next two plan years. As a result, the plan could technically move in and out of three-year or annual valuation cycles as the value of a plan's non-forfeitable benefits changes.

All other plans must continue to perform valuations annually, except:

• plans that received financial assistance from the PBGC under ERISA Section 4261

• plans that are closed out in accordance with PBGC guidance

These two exceptions remain from the existing regulations.

Filing Requirements for Mergers are Shortened

Plans preparing to merge are required to jointly file a notice with PBGC before the transaction. The final rule now shortens the time required to notify the agency from 120 days to 45 days in cases where a compliance determination isn't requested.

Existing reporting requirements will remain in effect when:

• a compliance determination is requested

• transactions involve a transfer of plan assets or benefit liabilities, due to the fact that transfers take more time to analyzeThe shortened reporting requirement still gives the PBGC sufficient time to review merger notices but alleviates much of the agency's need to grant waivers.

Final Rule Ends Requirement for Annual Insolvency Notices and Updates

Current PBGC regulations stipulated that if a multi-employer plan was to become insolvent, it had to provide a series of notices to PBGC, plan participants and beneficiaries on an annual basis. The final rule now ends this requirement, since the agency has found that once a multi-employer plan becomes insolvent, it typically stays that way. Therefore, annual updates haven't been useful to PBGC or the plan participants and beneficiaries.

In addition, the final rule eliminates the requirement for a plan sponsor of a terminated multi-employer plan to provide annual updates to the notice of insolvency.

Systematic & Practical

PBGC currently insures more than 1,400 multi-employer plans covering more than 10 million people in industries such as construction, mining, supermarkets, transportation, manufacturing, and hotels and restaurants.

In a news release issued by the agency, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade group that represents American businesses, applauds these revisions because they address concerns that many reporting requirements are too costly and lack merit.

The Chamber said the rule, "acknowledges this reality and eliminates requirements where the administrative burdens and costs outweigh the usefulness of the information provided."

Employee Benefits

In order to draw the most talented people to the organization, companies will often offer compensation in the form of employee benefits. Benefits can be a good deal to both the company and the employee. While benefits are usually taxed, they're generally taxed at a much lower rate than straight cash. In addition, employers can sometimes write off benefits in a way that they can't write off employee wages.

Benefit packages usually cost companies less than their actual value. This is because a company with many employees will buy the benefits in bulk and thus get better deals. Individual employees often prefer to be compensated with benefits rather than wages, because the services would cost them more to buy individually.

Some examples of the types of benefits are:

Health Insurance: Companies have long offered health insurance as part of their benefit packages on account of the fact that almost everyone has a need for it, and it's quite expensive to buy individually but can be purchased relatively cheaply when bought as part of a group plan. It benefits the company because healthy employees are more productive than sick employees.

Sick Leave/ Vacation Days: Paid time off is easy for companies to offer, because it comes in the form of the employee's normal wages, minus a few days of productivity. Time off has actually been shown in some studies to increase productivity and reduce company costs, because employee sickness and stress have costs for the company. For example, employees who don't have paid sick days will often choose to come in to work sick, possibly spreading their illness through the building, resulting in a large loss of productivity.

Housing: This is sometimes a benefit for executives and other workers with scarce, in-demand skills who have to relocate in order to take a job. Providing some form of housing, either in the form of a company apartment or rent voucher has ease the employee's transition and make them more committed to the company. Also, agricultural producers will sometimes hire seasonal migrant workers and house them in dormitories that they own or rent out so their labor supply remains in place throughout the season.

Childcare: With many women choosing to have both children and a career, companies have responded by offering onsite childcare.

Tuition Reimbursement: In order to maintain a workforce that is up to date on the latest advancements in their fields, a number of companies are offering tuition reimbursements so their employees can take classes while they work.

Profit Sharing: Stock options and other profit sharing schemes encourage the employee to invest their best work into the company to ensure that their shares will be more profitable. This can be one of the more lucrative employee benefits, as the stock of a company that does well during the employee's tenure can sometimes double or triple in value.

Retirement Contributions: Companies will sometimes match the employee's 401K contribution as a form of compensation. This is beneficial because companies don't have to pay taxes on what they contribute and the account is tax deferred for the employee.

PBGC Changes Multi-Employer Plan Regulations to Ease Burdens on Plans and Sponsors

Acting now to help multi-employer plans function proficiently in the future, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) recently announced amendments to existing regulations placed on multi-employer plans. These changes aim to reduce administrative costs and preserve assets by: making plans and their sponsors more effective and efficient; reducing regulatory burdens; and facilitating plan merger transactions.

The agency published its final rule on May 28, 2014 in the Federal Register. These revisions, which become effective on June 27, 2014, also impact the regulatory actions on annual valuations, insolvency notices and updates. The final rule has not changed from the proposed rule the agency set forth on January 28, 2014.

Valuations for Mass Withdrawals May Not Be Needed Annually

When a multi-employer plan terminated under the existing regulations, a mandatory annual valuation of the plan's assets and benefits had to be performed to determine whether the plan had to exclude benefits that were not eligible for the PBGC's guarantee.

Now, under the amended rule, valuations for plans terminated by mass withdrawal may occur every three years if:

• that plan is not insolvent

• the value of non-forfeitable plan benefits is $25 million or less

To comply with ERISA, the final rule allows these plans to use the most recently performed valuation for the next two plan years. As a result, the plan could technically move in and out of three-year or annual valuation cycles as the value of a plan's non-forfeitable benefits changes.

All other plans must continue to perform valuations annually, except:

• plans that received financial assistance from the PBGC under ERISA Section 4261

• plans that are closed out in accordance with PBGC guidance

These two exceptions remain from the existing regulations.

Filing Requirements for Mergers are Shortened

Plans preparing to merge are required to jointly file a notice with PBGC before the transaction. The final rule now shortens the time required to notify the agency from 120 days to 45 days in cases where a compliance determination isn't requested.

Existing reporting requirements will remain in effect when:

• a compliance determination is requested

• transactions involve a transfer of plan assets or benefit liabilities, due to the fact that transfers take more time to analyze

The shortened reporting requirement still gives the PBGC sufficient time to review merger notices but alleviates much of the agency's need to grant waivers.

Final Rule Ends Requirement for Annual Insolvency Notices and Updates

Current PBGC regulations stipulated that if a multi-employer plan was to become insolvent, it had to provide a series of notices to PBGC, plan participants and beneficiaries on an annual basis. The final rule now ends this requirement, since the agency has found that once a multi-employer plan becomes insolvent, it typically stays that way. Therefore, annual updates haven't been useful to PBGC or the plan participants and beneficiaries.

In addition, the final rule eliminates the requirement for a plan sponsor of a terminated multi-employer plan to provide annual updates to the notice of insolvency.

Systematic & PracticalPBGC currently insures more than 1,400 multi-employer plans covering more than 10 million people in industries such as construction, mining, supermarkets, transportation, manufacturing, and hotels and restaurants.

In a news release issued by the agency, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade group that represents American businesses, applauds these revisions because they address concerns that many reporting requirements are too costly and lack merit.

The Chamber said the rule, "acknowledges this reality and eliminates requirements where the administrative burdens and costs outweigh the usefulness of the information provided."

The Four Typical Types of Background Checks

They have been proven to be necessary for businesses to hire the right people the first time around. Various types of background checks have protected businesses against liability, showing a "reasonable effort" to protect current employees and customers. These checks fulfill due diligence and protects businesses from costly negligent hiring lawsuits. The background screening process is the first step in creating a financially and legally rewarding system that addresses businesses' greatest concerns such as:· theft and loss of property information,· training costs,· negligent hiring or retention claims,· productivity, and· violence in the workplace.

TypesThe most typical types of background checks are:

I. Criminal Background and Drug Screening: done at Federal, state and county levels.

II. Employment Screening: to verify employment history (work habits and skills) with previous employers.

III. Education and Licensing Screening: to verify education levels and degrees as well as professional licenses where applicable.

IV. Nationwide Tenant Background Check: by conducting an SSN trace, address history, 7-years national criminal database records and national sex offender registry checks.

Categories

These checks are typically completed by obtaining a name, social security number to validate identity by running instant check identity verification. For employment purposes, each job title fits into one of the following three categories of screening:

Category I: of individuals who have access to workspaces (contractors, vendors, or cleaning staff who do not have access to systems and operational processes. The screening process may involve an instant identity verification, drug screening and criminal background.

Category II: of regular or part-time staff with access to workspaces, systems and operational processes with screening process that involves instant identity verification, drug screening, criminal background, education verification, employee verification, and moving violation record.


Category III: of individuals with high degree of access to critical systems or information (department heads, corporate security, IT and finance personnel) and the screening process involves instant identity verification, drug screening, criminal background, education verification, employee verification, moving violation record, civil background and professional licenses.

Considering the legal restrictions of FCRA screening limitations, Americans with disability screening limitations and equal opportunity screening limitations for conducting checks is part of the process. It is therefore recommended to initiate and complete background checks only after a job offer is made and contingent upon passing the check before the person starts work.

Three Arguments to Bring a Discrimination Suit: When Suing Is the Right ChoiceThree Arguments to Bring a Discrimination Suit: When Suing Is the Right Choice

Why would you file a suit for discrimination or harassment at work? You're a peace loving person who just wants to do his or her job, and go home to enjoy the family. Besides, you ask yourself, how can I prove it?

There are three reasons to file a case for discrimination:1) Your efforts to enter an early dialogue and resolution of your employment grievances have reached an impasse despite your best efforts to be transparent and reasonable;

2) You know the company treated you unfairly in deciding to let you go, and you strongly suspect, even if you cannot put your finger on it, that it was because you were an older worker, or that you took some time off for a serious health condition, or because you weren't a member of the "old boys" club.

3) You have obtained expert legal counsel who informed you of the strengths and weaknesses of your case, giving it to you straight. Your questions about financial costs, and risks of losing were answered forthrightly, and you're ready to make the investment.

This third reason includes an assessment of just what you have to prove in a discrimination case. The fine point here is this: indirect and circumstantial proof is sufficient. In other words, extracting an admission, or obtaining a private email or memo stating a discriminatory motive in firing someone is not a requirement of the case.

The reason is practical: discrimination is seldom a moment of pride for an employer. The manager who makes the discriminatory decision is likely unaware of his or her own bias, or is very hesitant to admit it to himself or anyone else. The sparsity of direct evidence means that many real cases of discriminationn would never be presented or proven, and therefore discrimination at work would go unchecked.

As a result, the courts have designed the following basic elements of a discrimination case: a) that you are in a "protected" category; b) that you were performing your work satisfactorily; c) that there was remaining work for you to perform; d) that someone outside your "protected category" assumed your job responsibilities, and d) that you have suffered financial and/or emotional injury as a result.

It's that simple, and that incomplete. The burden of proof has been met, but the employer may overcome that proof with evidence of its own that the reason for termination was business necessity. That burden is fairly easy to meet.

The game-changer in the trial of a discrimination case is to prove that the reason is not only a lie, but likely a lie intended to cover-up a discriminatory motive. Are we back where we started with a requirement of direct proof? No. Only some additional corroborative evidence of discrimination is needed. For example, a manager may have made an off-handed comment that "Bob, you seem to be slowing down. When will you be retiring?" or maybe there is an email that refers to the need to recruit new youthful energy into the organization. These are not "direct" statements, but they are relevant to the question of discrimination, and courts have so held.

Questions To Ask Your Lawyer in the First Meeting

Question One: How many employment law cases have to your tried to completion?

Question Two: What systems do you have in place to manage my case?

Question Three: How active are you in professional organizations?

These are difficult questions perhaps, but with a little preface to the questions, they will seem perfectly reasonable: "I am a lay person. I am trying to select the most qualified and trustworthy advocate. May I ask a several questions about your background?"Good lawyers will graciously and generously answer your questions. If you do not get that reception, it's best to look for another employment law practitioner. But there are also three questions you may find useful to ask yourself after your meeting with your lawyer candidate:

Question 1: Did I feel a positive, confidence inspiring connection with this person?

Question 2: Did I feel I was heard, and that he or she got the essential points?

Question 3: Did I leave feeling I understood the big picture of what this attorney would do for me, how, and when?

You don't have to like your lawyer to obtain good results, but it will make the process easier because you'll be working as a team. This "team" approach to the case is especially true in contingency cases where you and the lawyer each have a percentage stake in the outcome. A good lawyer will want that team spirit and connection as much as you. Here are three questions that your should ask both you and your lawyer before you go forward:

Question 1: Do we communicate clearly and efficiently with one another?

Question 2: Can we laugh and relax even as we discuss difficult legal issues?

Question 3: Do we exchange ideas and insights about the case freely?

These "team" based answers will give you a preview of how you and your lawyer will respond when there is an unexpected negative turn in the case (and there always is.) For example, what if the other attorney uses intimidation tactics, or a particular piece of evidence is excluded, or a critical motion is denied, or perhaps a cooperative witness disappears or changes his anticipated testimony? You need to work together at those times to develop new approaches in the heat of the situation.

Here are 3 final questions, perhaps questions at the highest level of evaluation:

Question 1: Is my lawyer able to tell the emotional story of my case?

Question 2: Is my lawyer able to connect well with other people, especially people likely to be on a jury, or sitting as judge of my case?

Question 3: Is my lawyer creative, looking for tactics and approaches that may seem unusual, but that give us an edge against the opposition?

There are no perfect lawyers, just as you will not be the perfect client with the perfect case. Your goal is to find the best imperfect lawyer you can, and to be able to work with both the strengths and weaknesses of both him or her, and your particular case.

Stopping an Employee Working for a Competitor - Do Restrictive Covenants Really Work?

This is an issue that rears its head very regularly. The employer has invested a lot of time and resources in training the employee and providing that employee with experience that ultimately would be attractive to competitors. The general approach to such covenants is that the narrower the restriction the more likely such covenants will bind the employee. To illustrate that point, if the period of the non-compete clause is six months, as opposed to twelve months, and refers only to a competitor in, say, a local town as opposed to the entire State, then it is more likely that the restrictive covenant will bind the employee. That can fairly be described as the general approach of the law, but of course much depends on the facts of each case, and two cases illustrate that point.

In a recent Irish case the judgment does in my view illustrate the difficulties for employers. In that case the employee worked for a telecommunications company and there was clause in the contract that restricted him from working for a competitor for a period of 6 months. He was offered employment by a direct competitor,and gave notice of his resignation to his employer. The employer told the employee that he was prohibited from taking up his role with its competitor for a period of six months, and correspondence ensued between their respective lawyers. Both telecommunications companies reached an agreement which meant that the non-compete clause would be reduced to a period of just over three months. In effect, the employee would not be paid a salary for a period just in excess of three months. In a rather unusual twist, the employee through his solicitors brought an injunction to restrain his former employer from preventing him taking up his new employment. One must realise that injunctions are granted rather reluctantly by the Courts, particularly in relation to employment contracts, and it is generally accepted that an injunction will not be granted if damages, or compensation, is a more appropriate remedy. The judge, however, decided that there was a fair case to be tried, even though the only loss to the employee would be three months salary. The point this illustrates in my view is that the Courts in Ireland are reluctant to enforce non-compete clauses, and one reason for that is that the employee has a limited ability to negotiate when entering into the contract of employment. The employer has clearly greater bargaining power at the point of employment, so the employee has no option but to accept the restrictive covenants. That being said non-compete clauses do in my experience have a persuasive effect on the employee, and do influence the decision as to whether to leave to work for a competitor or not. All things considered, it is better to include a non-compete clause particularly where the employee will be privy to sensitive information and practices which could be of value to a competitor.

A recent English case does potentially give employers more cause for comfort with restrictive covenants. In that case there was a restrictive covenant in the employment contract preventing the employee for six months after he left the employment from working with any existing customer with whom the employer had business dealings. In August 2013, the employer lost a valuable contract to a competitor, and the employee resigned and in effect began working for the competitor providing the same services they had provided while in their previous employ. The former employer wrote to the employee pointing out that he was in breach of restrictive covenants and threatened an injunction if the employee did not provide an undertaking, or a written promise, that he would honour the covenants. The employee took legal advice and gave his former employee this undertaking. The employee then tried to renege on his undertaking after the new employer agreed that it would meet any legal costs incurred if the former employer was to sue.

The former employer acted on their threat and subsequently applied to the High Court for an injunction. The final decision of the High Court was to refuse to grant the employer its injunction because the Judge decided it was a disproportionate response and it would serve no legal purpose, as the former employer had lost the contract to their competitor. What is relevant to this briefing is what the High Court decided in relation to the restrictive covenants.

The High Court noted in particular that the employee had entered into the undertaking after he had left the employment, so there was not the presumption of unequal bargaining power that exists between the employer and employee when the initial contract of employment is signed. It was also important of course that the employee had received legal advice before entering into the undertaking post-employment. The High Court noted that ordinarily when dealing with restrictive covenants the employer is required to prove that such clauses are reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests. In this case, the Judge reversed the burden of proof on the employees because they had signed the undertaking post-employment. The onus was on the employees to prove that setting aside the restrictive covenant was justified and the High Court decided that the employees had failed to do this.While the High Court refused to grant the employer's injunction which is broadly in line with the practice generally in Ireland and the UK, it does illustrate the benefit of getting employees re-affirm covenants when they terminate the employment, and this can be achieved by means of a settlement or termination agreement. It might not get the employer over the line if he should bring an injunction, but certainly should improve his prospects and again actively dissuade an employee from breaching the particular restrictive covenant.