Health Care

Subscribe to Health Care

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Among the most significant changes for employers are the provisions related to COBRA. The ARPA provides assistance-eligible individuals (AEI) with the opportunity for a 100 percent subsidy for COBRA premiums between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021 (the Subsidy Period).

AEI include all COBRA qualified beneficiaries who are eligible for COBRA continuation coverage due to an involuntarily termination (or a reduction of hours) during the Subsidy Period and individuals who would have been AEI, but previously dropped or declined such coverage (i.e., their maximum COBRA coverage period would have extended beyond April 1, 2021). This is true regardless of whether their termination was related to the pandemic. In other words, any individual who qualified for COBRA because of an involuntary termination or reduction in hours with a coverage period that would have extended beyond April 1, 2021, is now eligible to elect coverage and take advantage of the subsidy. Employers (or their plan administrators) must provide updated COBRA notices to AEI. The Department of Labor is required to issue a model notice within the next thirty days. AEI will have sixty days from receipt of the notice to elect COBRA coverage, which will be retroactive to April 1, 2021.
Continue Reading COBRA changes under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

On January 7, 2021, the EEOC proposed two rules, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), designed to clarify what incentives employers may offer employees and their family members for joining employer-sponsored wellness programs.  In the 2017 case AARP v. EEOC, the then-existing regulations on employer-sponsored wellness programs were revoked.  Since then, employers have lacked guidance on how to structure wellness programs without violating the requirements of both the ADA and GINA that individuals’ disclosures of health information be voluntary.  The EEOC’s new rules seek to balance the competing interests.  However, given the Biden Administration’s recently issued freeze on proposed rules that have not yet been enacted, employers should not act on the EEOC’s proposed rules yet.

Legal framework

Under the ADA, employers cannot require employees to disclose medical information that might enable employers to discriminate against them.  Similarly, under GINA, the disclosure of the health information of a family member of an employee must also be voluntary.  In 2016, the EEOC finalized rules that outlined how employers could incentivize employees and their family members to participate in wellness programs that required the disclosure of health information without violating the ADA or GINA.  Under the 2016 rules, an employer could offer an incentive of up to 30 percent of the total cost of self-coverage without the wellness program running afoul of the ADA and GINA.  However, in AARP v. EEOC, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the EEOC had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its 30 percent incentive limit, and as a result, the EEOC removed the incentive sections from the ADA and GINA regulations.Continue Reading EEOC proposes new rules on permissible incentives for employer-sponsored wellness programs

Recently, New York’s highest state court, the Court of Appeals, held that the New York Labor Law (NYLL) does not automatically entitle New York home health care providers to wages for each hour worked during a 24-hour shift.

The ruling is the result of an appeal of two state court class actions in which home health aides accused their employers of violating NYLL by failing to pay minimum wage for each hour of their 24-hour shifts. The dispute arose due to a phrase in the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) Minimum Wage Order Number 11 for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations (the regulation), which states that workers must be paid minimum wage for the time they are “required to be available for work at a place prescribed by the employer.” Plaintiffs in both cases alleged that they were entitled to 24-hour pay because their patients could not be left alone and often needed assistance throughout the night, thereby requiring them to be available for work for their entire shift.Continue Reading New York’s highest court holds that home health aides are not entitled to 24-hour pay

In an important decision for California health care employers, the California Supreme Court recently confirmed that certain health care employees are allowed to waive their second meal breaks even if they work more than 12 hours in a shift.

History of the Gerard litigation

In 2015, the California Court of Appeal shocked health care employers throughout California by invalidating section 11(D) of Wage Order 5, which permits many health care employees (for example, nurses involved in patient care, pharmacists, etc.) to waive second meal breaks even when their shift exceeds 12 hours, Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem’l Med. Ctr., 234 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2015) (Gerard I). The Court concluded that section 11(D) was inconsistent with Labor Code section 512, which only permits a second meal period waiver “if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours.” Lab. Code § 512(a). The same court reversed itself in 2017 after the California Supreme Court instructed it to reconsider Gerard I in light of subsequent legislative enactments seeking to nullify the decision and clarify existing law, Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem’l Med. Ctr., 9 Cal. App. 5th 1204 (2017) (Gerard II).

On December 10, 2018, after a decade of litigation, the California Supreme Court affirmed Gerard II, concluding that section 11(D) is not inconsistent with the Labor Code, Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem’l Med. Ctr., 2018 WL 6442036 (Cal. Dec. 10, 2018). Thus, health care employees can waive their second meal breaks even on workdays when their shift exceeds 12 hours.Continue Reading California Supreme Court clarifies rules regarding health care employees’ waiver of second meal breaks

A series of wage and hour collective actions initially filed in New York and Pennsylvania have begun to swell across the country. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are targeting health care facilities over their alleged failure to comply with meal break rules. Specifically, such suits claim that employers have automatically deducted 30 to 60 minutes of time for employees’ meal periods, even if employees never took the breaks. The plaintiffs allege that by failing to provide unpaid meal periods free of interruptions from work, or by failing to fully compensate the employees for the time they were not relieved of duty, health care facilities have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and other laws. Because employees can recover for violations that took place as many as three years before suit is filed, damages in these cases can be substantial. Employers may be liable for double the employees’ overtime rate of pay for the unpaid meal breaks that were improperly deducted. In addition, plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs, which often exceed the actual damages.

Not surprisingly, the Internet has become an effective tool for plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to identify deep-pocket defendants. Some attorneys have even gone so far as to set up websites to provide information to employees about their investigations of health care employers. (See, e.g., hospitalovertime.com or overtimecases.com.) Such websites have become an easy way for a plaintiffs’ counsel to gather information about a particular health care employer’s practices, reach employees throughout the country, and publicize large settlements in wage and hour lawsuits.

Health care facilities throughout California have experienced a recent wave of wage and hour lawsuits. In 2008, at a time when registered nurses were in high demand and hospitals across the country were struggling financially, California completed implementation of landmark legislation passed almost a decade before, mandating minimum nurse-to-patient ratios. Not surprisingly, the shortage of nurses and other medical professionals has made it increasingly difficult for employers to comply with California laws requiring them to provide employees who work more than six hours with an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period. While many nurses acknowledge that the demands of their positions do not always permit an uninterrupted meal period, they uniformly object to not being compensated when they are unable to take the breaks to which they are legally entitled.

In addition to requiring payment of overtime when an employee works more than 40 hours per week, California law requires overtime pay when an employee works more than eight hours per day. Depending on the length of the shift, California employees who are denied meal periods may be entitled not only to overtime, but also to an additional hour of a “premium wage” for each missed meal period. California law permits employees to seek damages for meal period violations going back three years before suit is filed; but if the same allegations are brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Section 17200), the statute of limitations is four years.Continue Reading Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Targeting Health Care Facilities in Wage and Hour Lawsuits

On October 9, 2008, Governor Ed Rendell provided a victory for nurses’ unions by signing the Prohibition on Excessive Overtime in Health Care Act. The Act prohibits employers from mandating overtime for direct patient caregivers, including nurses and nurses’ assistants, in Pennsylvania’s hospitals and health care facilities. Effective July 1, 2009, hospitals and health care facilities will…