On July 21, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Forms Revisions to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report Series. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to suggest updates to the DOL’s reporting regulations to implement the proposed forms revisions was also published on July 21, 2016. The changes are generally targeted to take effect with 2019 plan year filings, although some may be implemented earlier or later. These updates bring forth numerous issues and additional obligations for employers. 

Employers and health plan sponsors alike have numerous obligations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that prove compliance to be a tricky area to master. Oftentimes, when meeting with clients regarding ACA compliance, I am frequently asked, "What are potential ACA audit items besides the well-known excise taxes that apply when employer health insurance coverage is not offered or that coverage is not affordable?" Here are 8 of the most common factors to be aware of during an ACA audit. 

Are you sponsoring a self-funded group health plan, employer contributed healthcare FSA, or HRA? If so, the deadline to file Form 720 is fast approaching. If you fail to meet this deadline you could be fined up to $2.17 per covered individual, but there are a few exceptions to the rule.

The Second Circuit Court recently held that an employee may be held individually liable for employment claims brought under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA provides for individual liability in addition to employer liability, which is usually the typical cause of action asserted by plaintiff’s counsel. However, rarely have there been FMLA liability cases where the plaintiff prevailed against an employee of the employer. In Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, the Second Circuit held that a Director of Human Resources may be individually liable for violations of the FMLA based on the level of control the individual had over an employee’s exercise of rights under the FMLA. In this case, it’s the HR Director. Tomorrow, it could be you.

As discussed in last month’s newsletter, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued final rules providing guidance on the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) to employer-sponsored wellness programs. Since the publication of those rules, the EEOC has now issued more information in the form of questions and answers on this topic and a sample notice to be provided to employees.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published the final versions of two new rules regulating employer-sponsored wellness programs. Two main provisions of these rules go into effect in 2017 while all of the other new provisions are effective immediately. The EEOC stated that most of the new regulations are merely a "clarification" of existing law. Therefore, they are immediately (and, technically, retroactively) effective which causes confusion and concern. 

In 2013, Wisconsin adopted some employer friendly legislation pertaining to the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits. Included in these revisions was language that provided that ex-employees may be denied unemployment benefits if they are found to have engaged in “substantial fault" - but what does that mean?

On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its final rule on the minimum salary threshold that white-collar employees must be paid to qualify as exempt from the overtime (OT) requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new salary level has now increased to $47,476 ($913 per week) from $23,660 ($455 per week) annually and takes effect December 1, 2016. This ruling left many employers with looming questions.