Protect trade secrets, avoid the burn
Original story posted by Roy Maurer on Society for Human Resources Management website.
An appellate court recently struck down a company’s trade secrets misappropriation claims because the company failed to protect its intellectual property (IP) as confidential or proprietary.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in Head Over Heels Gymnastics Inc. v. Ware that defendant Harriet Ware did not steal her former employer’s trade secrets because the information at issue was never identified as such.
Ware was hired as an at-will employee in 2006 to work with gymnasts at Head Over Heels gymnastics academy in Norwell, Mass. When she accepted the position, Ware acknowledged that she had received and understood the employee handbook, which failed to include a noncompetition covenant or any mention of trade secrets.
Head Over Heels maintained a list of the people who trained at the school, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. The information was available to all employees and was never identified as confidential or proprietary.
When Ware was terminated in 2012, she opened an academy of her own, taking approximately 30 Head Over Heels gymnasts with her.
The company sued, alleging that Ware misappropriated its trade secrets, violated her duty of loyalty by contacting its customers and unfairly competed with it.
The court held that because Ware was an at-will employee, she owed Head Over Heels no particular duty of loyalty and was free to “plan to go into competition with ... her employer and take active steps to do so even while still employed.” Further, absent a noncompetition agreement, Ware’s ability to compete with Head Over Heels was not constrained. Lastly, the court determined that Ware did not misappropriate her employer’s trade secrets because the school’s customer list was not legally considered a trade secret.
The court said that in determining whether information is proprietary to a business, “we look to the conduct of the parties and the nature of the information.” A determination about confidentiality is based on several factors, “including the extent to which the information is known outside of the business, the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the information and the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired.”
Head Over Heels argued that everyone at the company understood that its customer list was intended solely for the purpose of the business and was neither publicly known nor available.
Nevertheless, the court ruled that, “as a matter of law, the [customer lists] are not trade secrets or confidential proprietary information. It is undisputed that the [customer lists] were available to all staff and employees and were distributed to Head Over Heels’ gymnasts and their families. The broad dissemination and availability of the [customer lists] indicates that Head Over Heels was not trying to guard the secrecy of the information. Importantly, much of the information found in the [customer lists] was readily available in the public domain and could have been easily obtained.”
The court therefore deemed Head Over Heels’ trade secret claims “unrealistic.”
Employer Takeaways
What can employers do to protect against confidential information being used by a former employee? “For starters, if you have confidential information, let everyone with access to it know that it is confidential, either through a designation in the company handbook, when they are given access to the information for the first time or any other obvious way,” said Shepard Davidson, a partner at Burns & Levinson LLP based in Boston.
Limiting access to the information and keeping it secure are additional ways to preserve confidentiality, he said. Training and reminding departing employees about their confidentiality obligations during exit interviews are also good ideas.
“The good news is that a company’s efforts in this regard are measured by a standard of reasonableness, not perfection. So if you have information that you believe is important, confidential or propriety, take some time to set up reasonable systems to protect that information,” Davidson said.
Follow Roy Maurer on Twitter at @SHRMRoy
The Viability of Banning Salary Negotiations
Originally posted by Joanne Sammer on Society for Human Resource Management's website
When Internet company Reddit decided in April 2015 to ban all salary negotiations for both new hires and existing employees, the move garnered a wave of media reporting—and social media discussion.
Although Reddit is not the only company to adopt this policy, the difference is that Reddit tied its salary negotiation ban to an effort to close the pay gap between male and female employees. The fact that Reddit’s then-CEO Ellen Pao had just lost a high-profile gender discrimination lawsuit against a Silicon Valley venture capital firm gave the announcement particular significance. Three months later, Pao resigned as interim CEO under pressure, with some lauding her as a fighter against sexism while others charged her with mismanagement during her controversial eight-month tenure.
Regardless of Pao’s troubles, her decision to ban salary negotiations fired up the conversation about pay disparities. Now, it is fair to ask some key questions about the viability of this no-negotiation approach to compensation.
Reddit, which has about 70 employees, operates in the Internet/technology space in Silicon Valley. Although the company had operated with an informal no-negotiation policy, it was Pao who tied it to the gender pay gap. “She provided more structure to the way it works and formalized the policy,” according to Heather Wilson, a company spokeswoman.
Under the formal policy, Reddit offers new hires and employees set salaries based on competitive market rates for the positions they hold. “The employee is given a choice within that salary to select either more pay or more equity,” Wilson noted. “But the number is the same, just the make-up of pay-to-equity can be determined by the employee.”
Although Reddit is open to changing the policy in the future if circumstances change, “so far it seems to be working quite well,” Wilson said. “Reddit is known as a good place to work and has a strong internal culture, and the pay policy is a part of setting that culture and is in line with the company's core values.”
No Negotiating = Better Relationships?
A key question about any effort to ban salary negotiations inevitably raises questions about the impact on recruitment. Does banning negotiations place an employer at a disadvantage in the hiring process?
For Reddit, the reaction has been positive. “Since news of the policy has spread, Reddit has seen an uptick in candidates seeking to work at the company citing the policy,” according to Wilson.
Gender aside, there are plenty of people who are uncomfortable negotiating and could be attracted to an organization where negotiating salary is not expected. Perhaps that is why other organizations have also had success in hiring after banning negotiations.
Fathom Healthcare, a Valley View, Ohio-based firm that provides marketing services for hospitals and health systems, has banned salary negotiations but not as a way to close pay gaps. The company simply sees negotiating as a negative in the employment relationship.
Negotiating salary “starts the [employment] relationship on a note of distrust and dishonesty,” said Bill Balderaz, president of Fathom Healthcare. “If the company leads with a lower number than it is willing to pay, it is saying, ‘I think you are worth x, but I'm going to offer y and see if you'll take it.’ ”
On the other side of the table, Balderaz sees candidates who name one salary level but settle for another as “leading with a lie.”
To avoid this, Balderaz suggested that employers make only one best and final offer, based on a fair level of compensation. Fathom Healthcare, which has about 40 employees, has had its no-negotiation policy in place since its inception in 2006 and has made 60 or more hires at different levels and with different skill sets since then, with no trouble attracting candidates, according to Balderaz.
Balderaz noted that the company’s decision to make exceptions to the no-negotiation policy for a few candidates over the years has demonstrated the value of the ban. “We made a handful of exceptions in the early days and regretted it each time,” he said. “Salary negotiations inherently set a tone of distrust and [establish an] us-vs.-them attitude.”
Transparency Is Key
In announcing Reddit’s policy, Pao specifically highlighted the idea that the no-negotiation policy would help close the gender pay gap. Her rationale is that women are uncomfortable negotiating pay, frequently don’t negotiate at all and are often perceived negatively when they do negotiate.
Yet some critics of salary negotiation bans argue that these employers are fighting the wrong battle, and they’ve pointed out that the pay gap battle is not limited to gender. Significant pay gaps also exist for black and Hispanic workers, for instance, regardless of gender.
“You have women and people of color who are historically underpaid relative to their white male counterparts,” said Fatimah Gilliam, founder and CEO of The Azara Group, a leadership consulting firm in New York City. “I understand the intent to want to equalize things but I do not believe that the answer is to ban negotiation altogether.”
Moreover, banning salary negotiations does not necessarily guarantee fairness. There is nothing stopping an organization or certain managers from continuing to make higher, nonnegotiated pay offers to some applicants and not to others.
That is why some argue that increasing the transparency surrounding market-based pay levels is the more pressing need. “What enables people to get more money is having a better sense of what companies are paying,” said Gilliam. “If companies simply ban salary negotiations, they instantly have even more leverage. Saying that you cannot negotiate your compensation just limits the amount of leverage you have as a candidate to advocate for yourself.”
While certainly not widespread, some employers are starting to open the compensation books. Social media company Buffer publishes its open equity formula online, including an explanation of each element used to set pay and equity levels and a spreadsheet listing the compensation level and value for all 37 employees, as well as salary and equity formulas and calculations. This transparency effort began last year with the disclosure of the salaries of all employees.
7 Unexpected Signs You're Totally Stressed
Originally posted by Emma Haak on Oprah.com
You're Hearing Sounds That No One Else Does
Why it could be stress: Exactly how tinnitus is linked to stress isn't clear, but research in BMC Public Health found that people who were worried about being fired or moved to another job were more likely to report tinnitus (hearing a noise like ringing, buzzing, clicking or even hissing) or hearing loss than those who felt secure in their roles.
Other possible causes: Earwax buildup, really loud noises and age-related hearing loss. If it's happening often enough to bother you, see an ear nose and throat specialist to nail down the cause.
You've Gone From Outspoken to Wallflower at Work
Why it could be stress: Stress can make you feel impulsive (it affects brain areas that keep our behavior in check), but it can also make you feel the opposite way, triggering withdrawal and a loss of confidence that's usually most noticeable at the office, says Susan Evans, PhD, professor of psychology in clinical psychology at Weill Cornell Medical College. "You may find yourself in a meeting where you'd normally voice your opinions without hesitation, but now you're holding back because you're not sure if what you have to say makes sense," she says. A small study in Neurocase found that simply watching a stressful movie for 30 minutes (in this case, Saving Private Ryan) made it harder to complete challenging word-association tasks than viewing more lighthearted fare.
Other possible causes: You guessed it—depression. Withdrawal is a classic symptom, but usually comes with other signs like a loss of interest in your favorite activities, feelings of hopelessness or changes in appetite.
All It Takes Is One Stranger's Sneeze and Suddenly You're Sick
Why it could be stress: Your immunity takes a hit when you're stressed, research shows, leaving you less capable of fending off whatever virus is making its way through your house or office. In one study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stressed-out people were twice as likely to get sick after being exposed to the common cold. The stressed folks also produced more pro-inflammatory compounds once the virus was in their systems, potentially making sniffles and sneezes worse.
Other possible causes: A consistent lack of sleep can also hamper your immune system. If you're sleeping well, not feeling stressed, but find that your sick-day tally keeps growing, ask your doctor whether a more serious issue could be to blame.
You Have an All-or-Nothing Relationship with the Bathroom
Why it could be stress: Things may stop moving because your body is diverting energy to more essential organs and systems to help you survive, says David Spiegel, MD, director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford School of Medicine. And research suggests that diarrhea may be triggered by the gut's response to a chemical called CRF that the brain releases under stress (your colon is full of CRF receptors).
Other possible causes: Backups can develop from too little fiber (women 50 and younger need 25 grams per day; 51 and up need 21 grams). As for diarrhea, non-stress-related causes include stomach viruses, contaminated food and certain medications. You could also be eating foods that just don't sit well in your stomach, like these 6 items that many people have trouble digesting.
You're Doing Some Very Weird Things in Your Sleep
Why it could be stress: It's rare, and would only happen under extreme stress, but parasomnias (abnormal events like sleepwalking, sleep eating and night terrors) due to stress, can happen, says Rajita Sinha, PhD, director of the Yale Stress Center. Blame a ramped-up, always-on-alert sympathetic nervous system. It flips on your fight-or-flight response, and in the case of incredibly stressed-out folks, it can overpower your body's calming system during sleep, leading to unusual activity, explains Spiegel. "I had one stress patient," he says, "who would get up in the middle of the night when he was traveling for work, get dressed, go down to the hotel lobby and talk to people, and have no recollection of it in the morning."
Other possible causes: Obstructive sleep apnea, medications and certain (though rare) brain disorders—your doctor can help you figure out which one is causing your sleep disturbances.
Your Periods are Leveling You
Why it could be stress: Your stressed body is pouring out chemicals that help you take action and dialing down production of those that would alleviate your distress, says Sinha. And that means you'll feel pain more acutely, including discomfort from your menstrual cycle. Women with higher levels of perceived stress reported more severe symptoms, including cramping and pain, during their periods, found one study in the Journal of Women's Health.
Other possible causes: See your doctor to rule out causes like fibroids, a copper IUD, pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis.
You've Got Numbness or Tingling in Your Arms and Hands
Why it could be stress: You may be holding all that tension you're feeling in your neck and shoulders, a very common problem for women, says Holly Phillips, MD, an internist in New York and a medical contributor for CBS News. With major stress, the tension can lead to compression of a particular bundle of nerves that goes into your arm, causing that numbness and tingling. "Leaning over computers and smartphones for hours a day, and being stressed out while we're doing it, can make these muscle issues worse," she explains. "Our ears should be directly over our shoulders, but with this poor posture, they're a few inches forward. It's an awkward and pain-inducing position."
Other possible causes: Carpal tunnel syndrome—it can lead to numbness and tingling, too. Any task that involves flexing your wrist over and over can cause it. Another potential but less common culprit is nerve damage. But the sources can be serious (diabetes, infections, trauma and autoimmune conditions, to name a few), so if you notice these symptoms, call your doctor and make an appointment to get checked out.
The App Will See You Now, But May Not Get The Diagnosis Right
Originally posted by Martha Bebinger on July 9, 2015 on khn.org.
There’s a warning out today for those who go online or to apps to figure out why they have an upset tummy or nagging cough or occasional chest pain. Symptom checkers, those tools that ask for information and suggest a diagnosis, are accurate only about half of the time.
The finding is from a Harvard Medical School study that reviewed 23 sites, such as WebMD, the Mayo Clinic and DocResponse. One third listed the correct diagnosis as the first option for patients. Half the sites had the right diagnosis among their top three results, and 58 percent listed it in their top 20 suggestions.
Dr. Ateev Mehrotra, one of the study’s authors, urges patients to be cautious when using these tools.“These sites are not a replacement for going to the doctor and getting a full evaluation and diagnosis,” he says. “They are simply providing some information on what might be going on with you.” About a third of U.S. adults use the sites, although not necessarily in place of going to the doctor.
Some of the diagnostic questions are also used by nurse triage phone services and, Mehrotra says, these online tools are about as accurate as the call-in lines offered by many insurers and physician groups. “[They are] better than just a random Internet search,” he said.
Researchers entered the symptoms of 45 patients from vignettes used to train medical students. The Mayo Clinic’s first online diagnosis was right only 17 percent of the time, but had the correct diagnosis on a list of 20 in 76 percent of cases. Dr. John Wilkinson, who works on Mayo’s symptom checker, says the tool directs patients to medical research and prepares them to talk to their doctor.
“We’re always trying to improve but if most of the time the correct diagnosis is included in the list of possibilities, that’s all we’re attempting to do,” he says.
The diagnosis accuracy rate for physicians is 85 to 90 percent. But Jason Maude, who runs a high performing tool called Isabel, says he does not want a Web versus doctor showdown.
“The whole point is not to set the patient against the doctor or replace the doctor, but to make the patient much better informed and to ask the doctor much better questions, and then together they should do a much better job,” he says.
Isabel ranked well in the study, showing the correct answer more than 40 percent of the time in the first diagnosis and 84 percent in the top 20 answers. Those high results, Maude says, may be because the site lets patients type in their own description of symptoms. They might describe a “tummy ache” or “stomach cramps” rather than the more clinical choice of “abdominal pain” used by many online symptom checker tools. And Isabel asks just two or three questions before patients describe their problem, as compared to sites that ask patients to click through 20 questions — steps Maude said may discourage use.
Clarifying how and why patients use these tools is critical, say the study’s authors. They could reduce unnecessary office visits or inform patients as they talk with their doctors. But for some, the tools may encourage people to seek unnecessary care.
Mehrotra says patients used symptom checkers more than 100 million times last year, a fact that may stun some physicians.
“While most doctors know patients are going to the Internet to search for medical advice, in terms of these symptom checkers, I’ve been surprised that few of my colleagues even knew they existed,” he says.
Penalties Increased for Filing Errors
Originally posted on July 7, 2015 on acatimes.com.
Penalties in sections of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the failure to timely file correct and complete information in a return as well as the failure to timely distribute correct and complete statements were substantially increased – by up to 150% – with the passage on June 29 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (“TPE Act”).
The penalties are related to IRC Sections 6721 and 6722. Section 6721 pertains to the failure to file correct and complete information in a return. Section 6722 pertains to the failure to furnish complete and correct information in the payee statements. Section 806 of the TPE Act substantially increases the penalties set forth separately under these IRC Sections.
The penalty for failing to timely file and/or failing to file correct and complete information will be $250 per return (previously $100.) The cap on all such failures is raised to $3,000,000 (previously $1,500,000) under Section 6721.
This increase also applies to penalty for the failure to furnish complete and correct information in the payee statements, under Section 6722.
Under provisions of Section 6721 and 6722 for reduced penalties if corrections are made within 30 days after the required filing date, those lower penalties are now $50 per return (previously $30), with a maximum of $500,000 (previously $250,000).
The reduced penalties under each Section 6721 and 6722 where the corrections are made by August 1 is increased to $100 (previously $60) per return, with a maximum of $1,500,000 (previously $500,000).
The lower limitations under each Section 6721 and 6722 for persons with gross receipts of not more than $5,000,000 have also been increased. Such persons are subject to a cap of (a) $1,000,000 (previously $500,000) for failing to timely file and/or failing to file correct and complete information, (b) $175,000 (previously $75,000) for corrections made within 30 days of filing deadline, and (c) $500,000 (previously $200,000) for corrections made by August 1.
Penalties under Section 6721 and 6722 in case of intentional disregard as would be applicable to ACA reporting is increased to $500 per return (previously $250), and no cap applies.
These penalties apply with respect to returns and statements required to be filed after December 31, 2015.
The timing of when these penalties will impact ACA reporting appears to be after December 31, 2016. This is in view of the IRS’s previously announced availability of short-term relief for 2015 from ACA reporting penalties under Sections 6721 and 6722 if the employer can make a showing of good faith effort to comply with the ACA reporting requirements.
The penalties may also be abated based on reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
Presumably, the IRS could continue with that short-term relief and allow the TPE Act to go into effect with respect to ACA reporting penalties starting the following year, after December 31, 2016.
Take safety steps during most dangerous month for lightning strikes
Originally posted by Ben Smart on July 2, 2015 on cnn.com.
A lightning strike -- a brief but intense burst of electricity -- affected as many as 16 hikers. Three were rushed to a local hospital and eight others required medical treatment, according to the Clear Creek County Sheriff's Office. All the hikers survived the incident, but one hiker's dog was killed.
Across the country in Greeleyville, South Carolina, lightning may have caused a fire at Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church that gutted the interior and collapsed the roof, according to the FBI.
And now it is July, the month when the number of lightning strikes -- and fatalities -- is at its highest. So far in 2015, 14 people have been killed by lightning. On average, 49 people are killed and hundreds more are injured in the United States each year by lightning strikes.
The odds of being struck in your lifetime are about 1 in 12,000, the National Weather Service estimates. But experts say there are a few rules to help keep people safe.
"We need to look at lightning safety proactively, not reactively," said Dr. Mary Ann Cooper, a physician and lightning researcher who directed the Lightning Injury Research Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Avoiding situations where lightning can strike is key."
One simple rule
The National Weather Service recommends one rule to avoid lightning injuries: "When thunder roars, go indoors."
No place outside is safe when there are thunderstorms in the area, they say, as lightning can strike 10 to 15 miles away from a storm. If there isn't a structure nearby, a metal-topped vehicle with closed windows can provide safety.
Stay safe indoors
Although the safest place from lightning is indoors, there a number of extra precautions to take once inside.
A common misconception is that metal objects or water "attract" lightning. In reality, they're no more likely to be struck than a piece of cardboard or a person. The danger occurs because metal and water better conduct electricity once they're zapped.
The National Weather Service recommends people avoid washing hands or taking a shower, and touching or even unplugging electrical devices plugged into walls, as these can conduct electricity from a lightning strike.
Disregard outdated advice
Experts said there's some truth in the idea that lightning is more likely to strike the tallest object in an area -- for example, a tree or a skyscaper -- and that "pointier" objects are more likely to be hit.
But being outside at all during a thunderstorm puts you at risk of getting struck. The "lightning crouch," which was once thought to keep people safe during a lightning storm, is no longer recommended, Cooper said. There is no "safe" place outdoors during stormy weather.
"Lightning doesn't know if you're 6 feet tall or 3 1/2 feet tall after it's traveled miles through the air," said Cooper, who is the founding director of the African Centre for Lightning and Electromagnetics.
It's not always a direct hit
It's a common misconception that a person needs to be struck directly to be injured by lightning, Cooper said. Only 3% to 5% of injuries are from direct strikes, she said.
There are several ways lightning can reach a victim's body and cause injury. More than half of lightning-related injuries result from what's called a "ground strike," where lightning strikes the Earth and spreads through the ground, eventually reaching a person, Cooper said.
"A lightning 'side flash' also kills a tremendous portion of people," Cooper said. "That's where lightning travels down a tree and sideways where a person might be standing."
After lightning strikes
The surge of electricity from a lightning strike can wreak havoc on a person's heart, brain and nervous system, and it can cause instant death by "short-circuiting" the heart. A survivor of a lightning strike might live with severe brain damage that can make activities such as memory, learning and task organization difficult.
"Ninety percent of people who are injured by lightning survive, but disabilities can last for a lifetime," Cooper said. "I've seen significant devastation to families from lightning injuries."
If you witness someone struck by lightning, get emergency medical help right away. If multiple people are impacted, help anyone unconscious first. If the person has stopped breathing or has no pulse, correct CPR should be attempted immediately.
"If the person is breathing, talking and making sense, there is no emergency and generally little a physician would find or be able to treat," Cooper said. Some symptoms may not be noticeable until later, when a person is unable to carry out daily responsibilities in the way they did before.
"Many people who are struck by lightning describe it as a blunt force... like being impacted by an explosion," Cooper said. "Others may feel the sensation creeping up one leg, or as a burning or searing pain."
What Employers Need to Know About Court’s Gay-Marriage Ruling
Originally posted by Rachel Emma Silverman on June 30, 2015 on wsj.com.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, meaning that same-sex marriages must be recognized nationwide. The ruling will have vast implications for employers, which until now have been operating under a patchwork of different state and federal laws governing the legal and tax treatment of same-sex unions.
Here’s what businesses should keep in mind as they navigate the new landscape.
If an employer offers spousal health-insurance benefits, do they need to offer them to all married employees, gay or straight?
In general, yes.
Companies that offer spousal health benefits and use a separate insurance company to fund their benefits will now be required to cover both gay and straight spouses. “Based on the court’s ruling. there is simply one type of spouse,” says Todd Solomon, a law partner in the employee-benefits practice group at McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago, who has been tracking same-sex employee benefits for nearly two decades.
But companies that are self-insured, which means they assume the insurance risks for their own employees, a common practice among large companies, aren’t under the same legal constraints. “There is technically no legal requirement that a self-insured company has to include a same-sex spouse,” Mr. Solomon says. As a result, self insurance “is where we are going to see a lot of activity and a lot of litigation.”
Companies should think twice about self-insuring but denying benefits to gay spouses because they will be vulnerable to discrimination suits, he says.
What if an employer has a religious objection to gay marriage?
They have limited options.
Companies could choose not to offer benefits to spouses altogether. Or they could self-insure and attempt to offer benefits to only straight spouses, but they run a high risk of discrimination suits, Mr. Solomon says.
Now that same-sex marriage is legal, will it add a lot of people to employers’ benefits plans? Will this be expensive for employers?
It could, but it depends on what type of plan a company already had.
If a company already covered unmarried same-sex domestic partners, it could be cheaper because covering spouses doesn’t have negative tax implications and is easier to administer than most domestic partnership benefits, Mr. Solomon says.
But if a company only offered spousal benefits, the ruling will add new couples that previously weren't allowed to marry.
Will the Supreme Court ruling lead to fewer employers offering spousal benefits?
Yes—that has been the trend, and the ruling might exacerbate it.
Employers have been cutting spousal benefits to save money, either dropping spousal coverage or imposing surcharges on spouses who can obtain health insurance elsewhere. A survey from consulting firm Mercer of more than 1,100 large employers found that 17% either excluded spouses with other coverage available or imposed a surcharge in 2014, compared with 12% in 2012.
The Supreme Court ruling might spur some employers who were already inclined to cut spousal benefits to do so, Mr. Solomon says.
What are the tax implications?
It equalizes the tax treatment of gay and straight married couples.
Until the ruling, there were a patchwork of state and federal tax laws governing same-sex couples. Employers, depending on the state, sometimes faced additional payroll taxes for same-sex employees, and workers sometimes faced additional income taxes.
Now, for both federal and state tax purposes, companies and employees won't face different tax treatment for gay and straight married couples. That will make benefits easier for companies to administer, Mr. Solomon says.
What does this mean for domestic partnership benefits?
This is a particularly complicated issue for employers.
Over the past decade, a growing number of companies offered “domestic partnership” coverage for gay employees and their partners as a way to provide equal benefits for couples who couldn’t legally wed. Others companies offer coverage more broadly to unmarried domestic partners, regardless of sexual orientation, recognizing that some employees simply prefer not to marry.
Companies that offer unmarried partnership benefits to both gay and straight couples will likely continue to do so.
But companies that offer partnership benefits just to gay couples may begin to phase them out because now all their employees can legally marry. Offering domestic partnership benefits just to gay couples but not straight ones might make firms vulnerable to reverse discrimination lawsuits, lawyers say.
On the other hand, firms may choose to keep domestic partnership benefits to help protect gay employees from discrimination. The majority of U.S. states lack anti-discrimination protection for gay employees, so workers can be fired for their sexuality. Because marriage certificates are public, forcing employees to get married for spousal benefits may end up “outing” an employee, while domestic partnerships are typically private matters, gay advocates say.
12 Ways Your Pet Can Improve Your Mental Health!
Originally posted by Danielle Hark on July 14, 2013 on HuffingtonPost.com.
When I am feeling down and weary, and I can barely lift myself off the couch, my dog comes to my rescue. She cuddles with me, then motivates me to get up, dressed, and out the door for a walk or some play time. Somehow my fur-baby even gets me to smile, no matter how miserable or stressed I feel.
I am not alone. It turns out that all pets, not just therapy pets, can help your mind, body, and spirit.
Here are a dozen reasons why:
1. They get you outside: Sun and fresh air elevate your mood and the sun gives you an extra dose of vitamin D. Vitamin D exposure helps fight physical and mental conditions, including depression, cancer, obesity, and heart attacks. Also, when you go outside with your pet, you are engaging with nature. Try taking a moment to listen to the trees rustling, feel the wind rushing past, and the sun upon your face. The sounds and feeling of nature can be incredibly calming.
2. They get you moving: Walking your dog and engaging in outdoors activities like tossing a Frisbee gives you a natural energy boost, and allows you to let off steam. It also makes you more physically fit, strengthening your muscles and bones, which helps not only your body, but also your self-esteem. Studies have shown that animal owners, both adults and children, have lower blood pressure, as well as lower cholesterol and triglycerides, which may be in part attributed to the more active lifestyle pets promote. Pet owners also have been noted to have better circulation, and a lower risk of experiencing major cardiac issues. And when your body feels stronger, you are less susceptible to mental health issues.
3. They lessen allergies and asthma, and build immunity: This one may sound counterintuitive, but children who grow up in homes with furry friends are actually less likely to develop common allergies. Studies have shown that children who were exposed to two or more dogs or cats as babies were less than half as likely to develop allergies, including dust, grass, ragweed and pet allergies, and were at a lower risk for asthma. Allergies can cause people to become lethargic, apathetic, and suffer from insomnia, which can make them more vulnerable to mental health issues, such as depression.
4. Petting reduces stress: Rhythmic petting or grooming can be comforting to your dog or cat, and you. Concentrate on the texture of his soft fur, the warmth he radiates, and his deep breaths. When you connect with your pet, oxytocin, the hormone related to stress and anxiety relief, is released, helping to reduce blood pressure and lower cortisol levels.
5. They both distract you and keep you present: Being present and engaged with your pet takes your thoughts off of the issues that are plaguing you. When you are fully in the moment, you are not worrying about the past or the future. It's just you and your pet. Another way to keep distracted and present with your furry friend is to take photos or videos of his or her cute antics.
6. They lessen loneliness: If you don't like to be alone, pets can be great domestic companions. Often a pet is very intuitive and will seek you out when you're feeling down, refusing to allow you to remain alone. Just make sure you can fully care for and love a pet before you take her home. Pets should not be used to fill a temporary void and then pushed aside. A dog or cat is a long-term commitment, and it's not always easy, but if you are up to it, they can provide much love through the good times and the bad.
7. They're great listeners: You can talk to your pet about anything -- your day, your hopes, your dreams. You can practice a speech with them, lament about a breakup, or utter truths that you may be afraid to actually share with someone else. A dog or cat can be the perfect "person" to go to when you want to vent without any potential repercussions.
8. They love you unconditionally: Seeing her enthusiasm when you walk in the door can be an instant mood-lifting boost. Her tail wagging, tongue hanging out her mouth making it look like she is smiling, the way her ears perk up. Her grunts or purrs. She doesn't care if you just screwed up a deal at work, or bombed a test, she loves you for being you, whatever that means on any given day. She's just happy to seeyou. She wants to be around you, to love you, and be loved by you.
9. They can lessen your isolation: Dog parks allow for more opportunities for socialization for both your dog and you. Your dog makes friends pretty easily and will break the ice so you can connect with new people, and perhaps set up future dog dates, hikes, or playtimes at local parks. Your little cutie can be an instant conversation starter, and also a good way to get to know some of the people in your neighborhood.
10. They can give you a purpose: Having a pet to care for can give you a feeling of purpose, which can be crucial when you are feeling really down and overwhelmed by negative thoughts. By caring for your pet, or another person or animal in need, you are focusing on something other than yourself and your life. Your good deeds, and your pet's positive response, will give you a feeling of instant gratification.
11. They make you smile: When your dog does cute things like rolling on his back or putting a paw up on your arm, he can make you smile, which in turn triggers neurotransmitters to fire. These pet-time smiles can raise your serotonin and dopamine levels, which are nerve transmitters associated with calmness and happiness.
12. Playing is fun: With the grind of daily life, sometimes we forget to just let loose and have fun. Go ahead; wrestle, play catch, dance together, or just run around and act silly. Your dog will love you for it.
So go have some fun with your pooch or feline friend! Have a ball, with a ball, or anything else, and you will both benefit from the pleasurable together time.
And if you don't have a pet or can't get one right now, you can volunteer at a shelter. There are many animals that can still benefit from your love, and you will feel the benefits, too.
Limited Employer Impact Likely from Gay Marriage Ruling
Originally posted by Joanne Deschenaux on June 26, 2015 on shrm.org.
All 50 states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed out of state, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 26, 2015, in a historic victory for gay civil rights (Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14–556).
“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. He was joined by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Each of the four conservative justices who dissented from the opinion—Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—wrote a separate opinion, saying that the court had usurped a power that belongs to the people.
Implications for Employers
The impact of this decision on many employers will be limited, Scott D. Schneider, an attorney in Fisher & Phillips’ New Orleans office, told SHRM Online.
In states where same-sex marriage is currently legal, this ruling will have no effect, he said. But in other states, “employers should sit down and ask, ‘Where do we stand in light of this ruling?’ ”
One area that may be impacted is the granting of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Schneider said. “Someone who enters into a same-sex marriage may be entitled to FMLA leave.”
Similarly, employers in states that have not allowed same-sex marriage to date should examine their medical insurance and retirement plans. Same-sex spouses may qualify as beneficiaries under these plans now, where previously they might have been legally excluded from participating.
“The bottom line is that all employer policies related to spouses should apply to same-sex marriages,” according to Nonnie Shivers, an attorney in the Ogletree Deakins Phoenix office. In addition, employers should require the same level and type of proof of a same-sex marriage as they would of any other marriage, she said.
In some ways, this will make things easier for employers, she noted. “They won’t have to try to figure out whether they need to recognize someone’s same-sex marriage performed in another state. Anyone who has entered into a same-sex marriage is protected as a spouse.”
But, as a practical matter, employers should be aware that in states that have not previously allowed same-sex marriage, things are not going to change overnight, Shivers added. “Some county clerks—the ones who issue marriage licenses—have said that they are going to wait to hear about changes from the attorney general,” she said. This means that employers should be somewhat cautious about changing certain policies. For example, if an employer has policies in place regarding domestic partnerships, it may not want to change those policies immediately, she suggested.
And she cautioned that just because the legality of same-sex marriage is now a settled issue, that doesn’t mean that it won’t sometimes be a “hot-button" issue in the workplace. Employers need to be prepared to deal with possible employee reactions—whether based on religious beliefs or other factors—to gay and lesbian employees in the workplace, she said.
Court Finds 14th Amendment Protection
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are four of the states that have defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased had filed suits in federal district courts in their home states, claiming that state officials violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by denying them the right to marry or to have their marriages that were lawfully performed in another state given full recognition in their home state. Each district court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and reversed, ruling in favor of the states.
In reversing the 6th Circuit decision, the high court first examined the history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex, noting that while state officials arguing against same-sex marriage claimed that “it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples,” the plaintiffs “far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.”
The court then noted the changes over time in the nature of marriage—such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the laws that declared a wife the property of her husband—noting that these changes “have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential.” These new insights “have strengthened, not weakened, the institution,” the court said.
The opinion next discussed the country’s experience with gay and lesbian rights. Well into the 20th century, many states condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, the court noted, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, public attitudes shifted, allowing same-sex couples to lead more open lives. Then, questions about the legal treatments of gays and lesbians began reaching the courts, with numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federal courts and state supreme courts.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion now sets forth its holding that the U.S. Constitution requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a same-sex marriage performed out of state.
The court has long held that the right to marry is protected by the 14th Amendment, the opinion noted, and the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. “The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.”
Supreme Court's Ruling Means No ACA Compliance Reprieve
Originally posted by Stephen Miller on June 26, 2015 on shrm.org.
In what many are viewing as an anticlimax, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 ruling in King v. Burwell left the status quo in place regarding the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA's) tax-credit subsidies for individual “marketplace” coverage and, indirectly, the employer mandate to provide group health care coverage. Under the ACA, employer penalties are triggered when employees receive insurance tax credits because their employer-provided plan failed to meet ACA coverage specifications.
But health care policy wonks are pointing out what should have been obvious, though it is a lesson that some plan sponsors may have forgotten: As long as the law is the law, it's the law. In other words, some might wish that the courts, Congress or a future administration will alter or rescind the statute. But unless and until that happens, employers should take all necessary steps to maintain compliance with the ACA's coverage and reporting requirements—and not delay doing so in the hopes of a last-minute penalty reprieve.
Ruling's Impact for Employers
In an online commentary posted the day of the ruling, Timothy G. Verrall and Hera S. Arsen, attorneys with law firm Ogletree Deakins, explained that:
Importantly, the Court’s decision does not alter employer responsibilities under the ACA’s “employer mandate” and its related tax reporting obligations. Since the enforcement mechanism behind the employer mandate—tax penalties under Code Section 4980H—are premised on the availability of tax-credit subsidies for exchange coverage, had the Court rejected the IRS’s approach, the “teeth” of the employer mandate would have effectively been removed in the majority of states where federal exchanges operate. However, the Court’s decision affirms the IRS’s regulatory approach, thereby preserving the employer mandate as well.
“This court’s decision confirms the advice we have given since the Affordable Care Act was adopted,” added Joel A. Daniel, the practice group leader for Ogletree Deakin’s employee benefits practice, in the same commentary. “Employers should plan their compliance strategies based on the assumption that the act and the regulations issued under it are here to stay.”
In a similar vein, Shawn Jenkins, CEO of benefits management and administration firm Benefitfocus, commented that the ruling “is another strong indication that ACA is here to stay. The result is more clarity for employers and carriers as to the stability of ACA allowing them to move confidently forward in their benefits planning.”
Driving the point home, the takeaway highlighted in an analysis of the decision by consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers confirmed that “full on implementation of the ACA may now proceed,” adding:
Employers and insurers are facing the ACA mandates and associated reporting, and must be diligent to gather all the required information and implement the processes and procedures to comply with these requirements and provide the annual forms to individuals and the IRS next January. Planning to avoid the employer mandate penalties, as well as the 2018 tax on high cost plans, will occupy the attention of tax professionals, HR administrators and payroll departments, as well as internal audit and finance.
Many HR benefit managers will consider that an understatement.
Options for Small Businesses
Maintaining the status quo doesn't imply there will be no other ramifications from the ruling beyond affirming the need for vigilant compliance, but the effects will likely be most pronounced on firms that are not subject to the ACA’s “shared responsibility” mandate to provide health coverage.
By upholding premium tax credits to individual policyholders for health care purchased through the ACA’s public exchanges, including the federal Healthcare.gov marketplace, the King ruling makes it more likely that small employers not subject to the coverage mandate (those with fewer than 50 full-time employees or part-time equivalents) will shift away from group coverage.
“Small business owners, who are most affected by increasing premiums, now have the certainty needed to help transition themselves and employees to the individual market, which we expect to increase to more than 100 million by 2025," predicted Zane Benefits, which helps small businesses reimburse employees for individual health insurance plans. “We expect small businesses [not subject to the employer mandate] to continue to offer health benefits to employees in the form of monthly allowances (or ‘stipends’)” in lieu of providing group health coverage.
Not the End of the Story
While it should not deter employers from complying with the act, there could still be some rather significant fixes and adjustments made to the ACA. “Knowing that the ACA will be upheld, one would expect Congress to get more aggressive in working to improve it rather than rescind it,” said Jenkins.
Congress is already moving to pass and send revisions of the law to the president (which he, of course, may veto). These include, as Zane Benefits pointed out, measures to simplify the overly complex employer IRS reporting requirements, and to change the definition of a full-time employee to 40 hours per week (versus the current 30), while at the same time adjusting the definition of large employers to only include employers with 100 or more employees.
Similarly, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), representing benefit plan sponsors, issued a statement contending that while the Supreme Court had removed a source of potential uncertainty with its decision, much legislative work is still needed to fix the underlying law.
“With the legal case settled, Congress should use this opportunity to repeal the burdensome and unnecessary taxes, mandates and reporting requirements imposed by the ACA,” said Annette Guarisco Fildes, president and CEO of ERIC. “Specifically, we want Congress to repeal the 40 percent health care excise tax, the employer mandate and all the related reporting requirements.”
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) also took note that “While [the tax-credit subsidy] provision of the statute remains intact, other challenges in the ACA remain for employers. SHRM pledges to work with policymakers to address these challenges, including the definition of a full-time employee, the pending excise tax on high-value health care plans, and employer flexibility in offering wellness programs.”
Adding to the litany, the Business Roundtable, representing corporate CEOs, released a statement saying that “Moving forward, we believe Congress and the administration should address the problems that still accompany the Affordable Care Act, such as the medical device tax, insurance tax, pharmaceutical tax and the complexity of complying with the regulatory requirements.”
So while the Supreme Court's ruling ends a frontal assault on the act that could have undermined the foundation on which employer penalties rest, legislative skirmishes will continue. But that's no excuse for employers not complying with the ACA as it currently stands.