Employment Practices Liability Insurance Archives

Inquiring Minds and the FMLA

By Lynda

Complying with the many provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a concern for even those well-versed in the Act. Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified when the FMLA applies, and spelled out an affirmative duty of the employer to inquire and confirm if an employee wants to take FMLA leave if eligible.

What Is the FMLA and How Does It Apply?

The FMLA entitles some employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons. It applies to employers that are public agencies and to private employers with 50 or more employees who work at least 20 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. An employee is eligible for FMLA leave if they:

Worked for a covered employer for at least 12 months;
Worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of their FMLA leave; and
Work at a location where at least 50 employees are employed or within 75 miles of that location.

An eligible employee has the right to take 12 work weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period. In general, the employee can take leave due to their own serious health condition; for the birth of a newborn child; to care for a newly-adopted child; or to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health condition. This right means that if an employer terminates or otherwise retaliates against an employee for taking leave, it can result in a civil lawsuit or administrative proceeding against the employer for back pay, reinstatement, and other damages.

When a state provides greater protections than the federal FMLA standards, an employer must comply with state law as well. For example, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) also covers same-sex domestic partners, and provides more privacy protections. Continue reading “Inquiring Minds and the FMLA”

Risk of Misclassifying Employees vs. Independent Contractors

By Lynda

The appropriate classification of employees is a frequent source of confusion for design firms, usually coming up around the renewal of a firm’s Workers’ Compensation policy. It is an issue ripe with risk on an Employment Practices level. Recent court rulings in Arizona and Utah have resulted in construction firms paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in back wages, damages, and penalties.

As explained on the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog:

In an age of rising benefit costs and other constraints on the operations of professional service firms, some firms are turning to a range of tactics to reclassify workers to take them off the formal payroll and, therefore, lower their costs and administrative burdens. However, doing so may subject the employer to state and federal employment law fines and penalties.

All this is happening against the backdrop of a broader shifting of risk from employers to workers, who are shouldering an increasing share of responsibility for everything from health insurance premiums to retirement income to job security. While the future might present a model where everyone is truly an independent contractor and neither those actually providing services nor those using the services have any continuing or controlling interest in each other, such a situation does not currently exist and any firm that thinks it can avoid employment responsibilities, tax obligations, or employment practices liability needs to carefully consider alternatives to hiring workers.

Regulators and courts have increased their scrutiny of the relationship between business entities and independent contractors. Alleged misclassification of workers has been one of the primary battlegrounds of this shift, leading to high-profile lawsuits.

For decades, some professional service firms have shifted work from employees to independent contractors to cut their overhead and labor costs and, at times, to qualify for special government procurement assistance. Often, this has been accomplished by relabeling workers and slightly altering the conditions of their work. And some professional service firms have simply ignored regulatory and tax guidance and “informally” used the services of professionals and clerical workers as “consultants” or “leased personnel” or “temps.”

Now, however, businesses—including design firms and construction contractors—are turning to other kinds of employment relationships, such as setting up workers as owners of limited liability companies (LLCs) in an attempt to shield the businesses from tax and labor statutes. In response, some state and federal agencies are aggressively clamping down on such arrangements, passing local legislation, filing briefs in workers’ own lawsuits, and closely tracking the spread of what they see as questionable employment models.

Visit the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog to continue reading.

If you have questions about the appropriate classification of your employees prior to your next workers’ compensation renewal, contact your local a/e ProNet broker. We’re happy to help!

Expanding Employment Liability Risks for Design Firms

By Lynda

It’s true. The insurance industry has a reputation for bringing doom and gloom to an otherwise cheery outlook. Forgive us. Our business relies on our being able to spot negative trends in advance so that we can assist our clients in preparing for the worst. That doesn’t mean we don’t also hope for the best! Economic recovery is still ongoing, and we are thrilled that this means our architect and engineer clients are working and growing again.

That’s why, in our May 2012 post, To Hire or Not to Hire?, we mentioned some of the considerations and concerns facing design firms as they take on work that “could require additional hands,” including the need for accurate Professional Liability limits on their insurance policies… just a little worth-thinking-about-in-advance gloom.

Then this week, leading Professional Liability insurance provider, Victor O. Schinnerer, released its most recent Risk Management Guidelines, including an item on the Expanding Employment Liability Risks of recovering architecture and engineering firms.

“As firms downsized to face an economic downturn and restructured due to changing technology and new project delivery systems that required altered business models, employment practices claims rose. Add to that the challenges presented by the new generation of employees—many of whom consider their lives and the operations of their employers as public information, and a number of whom find the workplace to be a forum for their opinions—who are flooding the market during difficult economic times, and by returning military who must be accommodated in their former civilian positions or given preferential treatment, and firms are faced with a demanding and confusing employment perspective as they begin to staff up.”

Continue reading “Expanding Employment Liability Risks for Design Firms”