Do you owe PCORI fees?
Employers who offer self-insured group health plans should be familiar by now with the annual fee to support the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fund. Started in 2012, the fee is levied annually on employers who contribute to HRA and FSA accounts as part of a self-funded group plan except in certain situations. The fee will sunset after the 2019 plan year.
This year's fee of $2.39 per participating employee is due by July 31, along with a completed IRS Form 720, according to SHRM, which offers other advice and clarifications on the fee.
Seattle's short-lived 'head tax'
Less than a month after approving a tax on large employers that would levy $275 per full-time worker, the Seattle City Council has voted to repeal it. The divisive "head tax," primarily targeting big businesses such as Amazon and Starbucks, would have raised approximately $50 million in funding for homelessness initiatives in the city.
The measure was met with criticism from Amazon and Starbucks, as well as local interest groups. "We welcome this move by the City Council and believe the best path forward is to implement the reforms recommended two years ago by the city's own homelessness expert," Starbucks senior vice president of public affairs John Kelly said in a statement.
The vote to repeal was also met with protests from those in favor of the tax and claims the city was bowing to big business. There is no word yet on how the repeal is affecting other cities considering a head tax, which includes San Francisco, Mountain View, Cupertino and East Palo Alto.
One step forward for ex-offenders in Arizona
When it comes to hiring former criminals, many employers are reluctant. Their stance has prompted an increase in "ban the box" legislation across the country. While Arizona has stopped short of following suit, a recently passed law helps alleviate at least one of employers' concerns.
The new law, effective August 3, creates a limitation on liability for employers who hire a person with a criminal history and prohibits an individual's criminal history from being used as an argument in negligent hiring cases or accusations of inadequate supervision.
The law notes some exceptions, of course, dependent on the type of criminal offense and the work to be done--an individual with a criminal history of fraud or misusing money or property could find those convictions admissible in the event they're accused of similar infractions by their employer.
Expanded protections for older job applicants
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act has been around for 50 years, prohibiting policies that target or negatively impact older workers. A recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit court on the ADEA's "disparate impact" language expands the protections for those seeking employment in the Midwest. Courts have argued whether the provision regarding practices that indirectly cause a negative impact applies only to currently employed workers, but an appeals court decision holds that the protection includes job applicants, as well.
The case, Kleber v. CareFusion, involved an experienced attorney seeking employment at a health care products company. The job listing, however, specified that applicants have no more than 7 years' experience, and despite his other qualifications, the man did not receive an interview. According to Windy City Legal Geek, such language is commonly justified by businesses as a way to discourage overly qualified applicants who would find the position boring and want to leave quickly. The court disagreed, siding with the plaintiff's argument that such language deterred older applicants and thus had a disparate impact.
Nevada court defines "health benefit"
Nevada employers looking to maximize their revenue by offering health insurance to qualify for the state's lower minimum wage requirement should start looking into new strategies. Currently, the state's minimum wage is $8.25 per hour, but for employers who offer health benefits, the minimum drops to $7.25 per hour--even if employees don't take the insurance.
Seeking to use the stipulation to their advantage, some employers offer health insurance plans that are too expensive for employees to purchase but still allow them to pay the lower wage. Employees at MDC Restaurants fought back against this practice in a lawsuit against the employer to define the requirements of a health benefit. Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court answered: "A benefit in the form of health insurance at least equivalent to the one dollar per hour in wages that the employee would otherwise receive" and that the total cost of premiums to the employee not exceed 10 percent of their gross taxable income.
The court opinion also noted that the employer is responsible for proving their health benefits are in compliance with the definition. However, not defined by the court was how an employer calculates the cost of the benefit, an issue that will likely arise in future lawsuits.
Advertisement
Do you owe PCORI fees?
Employers who offer self-insured group health plans should be familiar by now with the annual fee to support the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fund. Started in 2012, the fee is levied annually on employers who contribute to HRA and FSA accounts as part of a self-funded group plan except in certain situations. The fee will sunset after the 2019 plan year.
This year's fee of $2.39 per participating employee is due by July 31, along with a completed IRS Form 720, according to SHRM, which offers other advice and clarifications on the fee.
Seattle's short-lived 'head tax'
Less than a month after approving a tax on large employers that would levy $275 per full-time worker, the Seattle City Council has voted to repeal it. The divisive "head tax," primarily targeting big businesses such as Amazon and Starbucks, would have raised approximately $50 million in funding for homelessness initiatives in the city.
The measure was met with criticism from Amazon and Starbucks, as well as local interest groups. "We welcome this move by the City Council and believe the best path forward is to implement the reforms recommended two years ago by the city's own homelessness expert," Starbucks senior vice president of public affairs John Kelly said in a statement.
The vote to repeal was also met with protests from those in favor of the tax and claims the city was bowing to big business. There is no word yet on how the repeal is affecting other cities considering a head tax, which includes San Francisco, Mountain View, Cupertino and East Palo Alto.
One step forward for ex-offenders in Arizona
When it comes to hiring former criminals, many employers are reluctant. Their stance has prompted an increase in "ban the box" legislation across the country. While Arizona has stopped short of following suit, a recently passed law helps alleviate at least one of employers' concerns.
The new law, effective August 3, creates a limitation on liability for employers who hire a person with a criminal history and prohibits an individual's criminal history from being used as an argument in negligent hiring cases or accusations of inadequate supervision.
The law notes some exceptions, of course, dependent on the type of criminal offense and the work to be done--an individual with a criminal history of fraud or misusing money or property could find those convictions admissible in the event they're accused of similar infractions by their employer.
Expanded protections for older job applicants
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act has been around for 50 years, prohibiting policies that target or negatively impact older workers. A recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit court on the ADEA's "disparate impact" language expands the protections for those seeking employment in the Midwest. Courts have argued whether the provision regarding practices that indirectly cause a negative impact applies only to currently employed workers, but an appeals court decision holds that the protection includes job applicants, as well.
The case, Kleber v. CareFusion, involved an experienced attorney seeking employment at a health care products company. The job listing, however, specified that applicants have no more than 7 years' experience, and despite his other qualifications, the man did not receive an interview. According to Windy City Legal Geek, such language is commonly justified by businesses as a way to discourage overly qualified applicants who would find the position boring and want to leave quickly. The court disagreed, siding with the plaintiff's argument that such language deterred older applicants and thus had a disparate impact.
Nevada court defines "health benefit"
Nevada employers looking to maximize their revenue by offering health insurance to qualify for the state's lower minimum wage requirement should start looking into new strategies. Currently, the state's minimum wage is $8.25 per hour, but for employers who offer health benefits, the minimum drops to $7.25 per hour--even if employees don't take the insurance.
Seeking to use the stipulation to their advantage, some employers offer health insurance plans that are too expensive for employees to purchase but still allow them to pay the lower wage. Employees at MDC Restaurants fought back against this practice in a lawsuit against the employer to define the requirements of a health benefit. Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court answered: "A benefit in the form of health insurance at least equivalent to the one dollar per hour in wages that the employee would otherwise receive" and that the total cost of premiums to the employee not exceed 10 percent of their gross taxable income.
The court opinion also noted that the employer is responsible for proving their health benefits are in compliance with the definition. However, not defined by the court was how an employer calculates the cost of the benefit, an issue that will likely arise in future lawsuits.
Advertisement
Do you owe PCORI fees?
Employers who offer self-insured group health plans should be familiar by now with the annual fee to support the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fund. Started in 2012, the fee is levied annually on employers who contribute to HRA and FSA accounts as part of a self-funded group plan except in certain situations. The fee will sunset after the 2019 plan year.
This year's fee of $2.39 per participating employee is due by July 31, along with a completed IRS Form 720, according to SHRM, which offers other advice and clarifications on the fee.
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more inforrmation visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Emily Payne
Emily Payne is director, content analytics for ALM's Business & Finance Markets and former managing editor for BenefitsPRO. A Wisconsin native, she has spent the past decade writing and editing for various athletic and fitness publications. She holds an English degree and Business certificate from the University of Wisconsin.
