Labor & ERISA Lawyers

Labor & ERISA Lawyers Labor/employment, ERISA, and corporate attorneys. We will deliver to you the highest quality of services for a reasonable price.

Broemer & Associates provides legal services to corporations in need of ERISA labor representation or general corporate representation, as well as individuals or corporations requiring assistance in a wide range of areas. Most importantly, Broemer & Associates provides excellent legal services for a fraction of the cost that many corporations and insurers have to pay for "BIG" firms. At Broemer &

Associates, we are committed to building long term relationships with our clients through dedication and service. Broemer & Associates serves corporate clients of all sizes in labor and general capacities. Many employers hire Broemer & Associates to perform general counsel functions, others hire us to provide individualized plan design, compliance, and labor-related representation. Broemer & Associates has designed and helped maintain benefit plans all over the United States for a wide variety of employers.

Congratulations, and good luck, to all who finished the State Bar Exam, today.
02/28/2024

Congratulations, and good luck, to all who finished the State Bar Exam, today.

Large Employer COVID-19 Vaccination MandateThe Biden Administration has issued notice that OSHA will be implementing an ...
09/28/2021

Large Employer COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate

The Biden Administration has issued notice that OSHA will be implementing an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) affecting all employers with 100 or more employees. Under the ETS, employers must require workers to show either proof of full vaccination, or provide a current negative COVID-19 test at least once per week, before returning to work. Employers must provide workers paid time off to get vaccinated and recover from vaccination side-effects.

Specific measures and guidelines are expected to be published soon. We will actively monitor developments and inform you as they become available.

Updated Guidance on OSHA’s COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Policiesfor Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the WorkplaceAnti-...
09/28/2021

Updated Guidance on OSHA’s COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Policies
for Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

Anti-Retaliation
On June, 21, 2021, OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”), mandatory for health-care employers, went into effect. It included significant anti-retaliation provisions. The Anti-Retaliation provisions of the ETS are designed to improve employee awareness of its protections. Employers are required to inform their employees of their protection against retaliation under ETS. This can be done verbally, in writing, or incorporated into COVID-related training.

The ETS emphasizes protection for Employees who disclose possible COVID-related threats. The ETS prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against employees for COVID-related notifications, such as disclosing a positive COVID test or related symptoms, quarantining after testing positive, or notifying the employer of insufficient PPE, insufficient cleaning processes, or other risks.

Although, the provision largely overlaps with existing protections and procedures under Section 11(c) of OSHA, the updated ETS provisions offer additional remedies. These include a longer response time for OSHA to issue a citation. The citation itself may order remedies such as back-pay and reinstatement that would only be available through litigation under Section 11(c). Employees may choose either route, and are not limited to remedies under ETS.

Updated Workplace Guidance
The following guidance was updated August 13, 2021 and is suggested for all employers and workplaces. Currently, these guidelines are recommended to all but mandatory only for health-sector employers.

OSHA continues to recommend that all workers, vaccinated and unvaccinated, wear a mask while at work and physically distance in work spaces where possible. OSHA suggests that employers “consider adopting policies that require workers to get vaccinated or to undergo regular COVID-19 testing – in addition to mask wearing and physical distancing – if they remain unvaccinated.” Continued recommendations include:
• Facilitating employee vaccinations, including paid time off to get vaccinated and recover from any side effects;
• Instructing workers who are affected and may have been exposed to get tested and stay home;
• Informing employees about their rights according to the ETS Anti-retaliation policies;
• Implementing physical distancing in communal work areas;
• Providing workers with face coverings and training about safe practices in their primary language;
• Practicing regular cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and maintaining ventilation systems.

As always, it is our top priority to keep you informed. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Fulton Broemer ([email protected]).

Broemer & Associates, PLLC
3201 White Oak Drive
Houston, Texas 77007
713-328-1100
https://www.broemerlaw.com/

President Biden puts non-compete agreements in the federal government’s crosshairs.On July 9, 2021, President Biden issu...
07/20/2021

President Biden puts non-compete agreements in the federal government’s crosshairs.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order (entitled: Promoting Competition in the American Economy). The order “encourages” the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules which would “curtail the unfair use of non-compete … clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.”

The White House issued a related statement, asserting that “roughly half of private sector businesses require at least some employees to enter non-compete agreements.” The White House has stated that it particularly concerned about non-compete clauses which impact “construction workers, hotel workers, [and] many blue-collar jobs.” Likewise, President Biden directly referenced concerns about limiting employers’ requirement of non-compete agreements from hourly wage earners; specifically referencing the fast-food industry.
To date, no action has been announced, to issue any rule regulating non-compete agreements, under this executive order.

The FDA has authorized distribution of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna.  Vaccinations are expected to b...
12/23/2020

The FDA has authorized distribution of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Vaccinations are expected to become widely available over the next few months, providing employers with potential opportunities to resume more normal workforce schedules and routines. The EEOC has provided guidance, confirming that employers may require employees to be vaccinated before returning to the workplace.

Of course, there are certain restrictions. Employers, which make COVID vaccinations mandatory, must provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs prohibiting vaccination. Employers may deny an accommodation if there is no reasonable alternative to prevent a “direct threat” caused by the presence of unvaccinated employees. A “direct threat” is a “significant risk of substantial harm . . . that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Employers may also apply the usual ADA standard of reasonableness to any vaccination-alternative accommodations requested by employees.

Any employer considering mandatory workforce COVID vaccinations should contact our firm. We can help ensure compliance with the applicable EEOC and ADA regulations and guidance.

Here is a link to the EEOC’s guidance.
https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWW1FMk5qaGpOMlZrTUdJNSIsInQiOiJhWXl4OXBHVlJDSGRcL1dMaVVUNzk2Rkl6ZFdKRnBKbkp3TG51M3R3OHlOWVJmcVdBQmtHN1ZoanFyNWs1Tk0xdHZ4QVFSZDIwaDMzVlRBemJmaExGd3gxc2c3Zk1tYzQ5UExXNHZZUENVU3NCbG5yN3lsRWNvd240RFJqQVNqMFcifQ%3D%3D

We are carefully reviewing the various components of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), a comprehens...
03/24/2020

We are carefully reviewing the various components of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), a comprehensive emergency response act signed by President Trump. Among many other things, the FFCRA establishes mandatory paid sick time, under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”), and medical leave benefits for eligible employees through amendment of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). As with any act which is hastily drafted and signed, this is more a policy statement than a carefully-drafted law. This means we can expect regulations and guidance to be issued, in the next few weeks, to provide additional details on applicability and enforcement. We are monitoring the situation, and will be here to provide information and advice to our clients. While the members of our firm are working remotely, we are fully available to assist you with questions and response strategies.

Here is a very general outline of the provisions of the FFCRA which are most likely to impact our clients.

EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE ACT

Covered Employers: The EPSLA applies to any employer with 500 or fewer employees. The Secretary of Labor may issue guidance or exemptions for smaller employers (less than 50 employees) which are unable to meet the financial requirements of the EPSLA.

Eligibility: The EPSLA applies to all current employees, regardless of their length of employment.

1. An employee who is part of a governmentally-mandated quarantine due to COVID-19;
2. An employee who has been advised, by a medical professional, to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 infection or exposure; [Note: the Act does not cover self-imposed quarantine not required by a doctor or medical professional.]
3. An employee who is actively seeking a medical diagnosis due to symptoms of COVID-19;
4. An employee who is a primary caretaker for someone who falls in categories 1 – 3;
5. An employee who is caring for his/her child, because the child’s school, or other day-care facility, has been closed due to COVID-19;
6. An employee who is subjected to any condition which the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, deem to be covered under the EPSLA. HHS is expected to issue additional information on what this final eligibility item actually means. For now, it is just a catchall in a hastily drafted act.

PTO: Effective April 02, 2020, the EPSLA requires all covered employers to provide up to 80 hours of PTO for any eligible employee. Leave under the EPSLA may be taken without advance notice. Employers may not require employees to use other sources of sick and unpaid leave before utilizing the leave granted under the EPSLA.

Employees applying for PTO under eligibility items 1, 2, and 3, above, shall receive paid sick leave at their average regular rate. However, the paid sick leave shall not exceed $511 per day, or $5,110 total, for each employee.

Employees applying for PTO under eligibility items 4, 5 and 6, above, shall receive paid sick leave at 66% of their average regular rate. However, the paid sick leave shall not exceed $200 per day, or $2000 total, for each employee.

FMLA EXPANSION

The FMLA expansion applies to all employers with fewer than 500 employees. Unlike other provisions of the FMLA, to be eligible, employees must only have worked for the employer for 30 days.

A covered employee, who is unable to work (including remote work), may take up to 12 weeks of FMLA leave, if the employee is the primary care-giver for his/her child (under 18 years of age), whose school (or day care) has been closed due to COVID-19.

The first 10 days of leave, taken under these expanded FMLA provisions, is unpaid. However, the employee may utilize other forms of paid leave (such as the benefits under the Paid Sick Leave Act – eligibility item 5) during the initial 10 day period. Thereafter, the employee is entitled to be paid 66% of the regular wages he/she would have been scheduled to earn during the benefit period. This benefit may not exceed $200 per day, or $10,000 total, for each employee.

For employers with 25 or more employees, any employee returning from the expanded COVID-19 FMLA leave is entitled to reinstatement to the employee’s former position, or an equivalent position.

For employers with fewer than 25 employees, any employee returning from the expanded COVID-19 FMLA leave is entitled to reinstatement to the employee’s former position, or an equivalent position, unless his/her former position has been eliminated due to economic harm caused by the COVID-19 health crisis. In such cases, the employer has an affirmative duty, for one year, to contact any such employee if an equivalent position becomes available.

Employers may effect “practicable” notice requirements for applications for expanded FMLA leave relating to COVID-19.

TAX CREDITS

Employers will receive tax credits, applicable to employer Social Security tax contributions, for 100% of the qualified sick leave and FMLA leave paid under the FFCRA. Employers will be reimbursed if their costs for qualified sick leave, or qualified family leave wages, exceed the taxes they would owe. Credits and reimbursements will be based on quarterly caps established in the FFCRA.

President Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.  If you don't know anything about him,...
07/13/2018

President Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. If you don't know anything about him, beyond the hysterical provocations of click-bait, here is a little information from the American Bar Association. Anyone reading this should know that the ABA is in a neck-and-neck race with the ACLU for most liberal lawyer organization in the country. Nevertheless, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary "gave Kavanaugh a well-qualified rating by a substantial majority when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 and in 2005, then rated him as qualified in a new review in 2006. That year, a substantial committee majority gave Kavanaugh a qualified rating, while a minority gave him a well-qualified rating."

See more here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_judicial_ratings_kavanaugh

The United Supreme Court has issued what may become one of the most significant labor rulings of the young century.  In ...
06/29/2018

The United Supreme Court has issued what may become one of the most significant labor rulings of the young century. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that laws making union dues mandatory, for public employees who do not wish to be union members, are unconstitutional.

In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court eliminated 40 years of legislation and jurisprudence which permitted mandatory union dues in some states, even for employees who weren’t union members. The Court overturned its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The Abood case held that public employees may be required to pay mandatory fees to unions for collective bargaining and lobbying. The Abood decision warned of the “risk of ‘free riders’” to justify mandatory dues.

Writing for the Court, in the Janus decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Mr. Janus “argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage.”

This decision could have drastic impact on unions and their ability to maintain membership levels and dues for lobbying and collective bargaining. Whether the inability to enforce mandatory membership dues will materially curtail union activities, however, remains to be seen.

Here is the actual opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

The Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule may be a goner.In 2016, the DOL issued a new Fiduciary Rule, radically expandin...
04/25/2018

The Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule may be a goner.

In 2016, the DOL issued a new Fiduciary Rule, radically expanding the class of persons who could be considered fiduciaries, be held to fiduciary standards, and incur fiduciary liabilities. For two years, the Fiduciary Rule has been the source of litigation, controversy, and vexation. Implementing it was so difficult that the DOL, itself, had to push back effective dates repeatedly. Finally, in early 2017, Judge Barbara Lynn, of the Northern District of Texas, upheld the Fiduciary Rule and gave the DOL the green light to begin implementation. A year later, in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. DOL, the 5th Circuit issued a 2-1 decision overruling Judge Lynn, and vacating the DOL Fiduciary Rule.

The sweeping decision rejects the regulation re-defining fiduciary investment advice, as well as the new prohibited transaction exemptions, and the modifications to old exemptions. The Court determined that the Fiduciary Rule conflicts with ERISA §3(21)(A)(ii) and IRC §4975(e)(3)(B). The Fiduciary Rule assigns fiduciary status to virtually anyone who is paid to render investment advice, has the authority to do so. The Court found that such a broad application would include ordinary salespersons, stockbrokers, and insurance agents as fiduciaries. By attempting to so broadly expand the pool of entities to which fiduciary status may apply, the Court said, the Fiduciary Rule “fatally conflicts with the statutory text.”

The Court also found that the Fiduciary Rule fails to meet the “reasonableness” requirements of the U.S. Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). The Court found that the Fiduciary Rule was illogical, unreasonable, and inconsistent, and that it infringed on the Dodd-Frank Act by trespassing on “SEC turf” (the regulation of brokers and dealers).

Essentially, as with so many regulatory expansions under President Obama, the court found that DOL was usurping legislative powers. The Court basically said that “[r]ather than infringing on SEC turf, DOL ought to have deferred to Congress’ very specific Dodd-Frank delegations and conferred with and supported SEC practices to assist IRA and all other individual investors.” The Court concluded that the Fiduciary Rule constituted an arbitrary and capricious exercise of administrative power.

If the DOL wants to completely vitiate the Fiduciary Rule, and many believe that this iteration of DOL wants exactly that, the 5th Circuit has well and truly done the job. It is probable that DOL will decline to seek a rehearing or to appeal the ruling. In this circumstance, the Fiduciary Rule will be vacated, and the DOL’s old five-part test will be reinstated. Some believe, however, that the DOL will seek rehearing or appeal in order to buy time to revise the rule; keeping some of the good parts and eliminating the overreach.

By the way, this isn’t the end of the issue of fiduciary status. The SEC is expected to release its own new fiduciary rule this year, and several of the states are pursuing their own expanded fiduciary standards. Moreover, this issue continues to have traction in Congress.

Medically Necessary Breaks Under FMLA May not be Compensable TimeOn April 12, 2018 the Department of Labor ("DOL") issue...
04/19/2018

Medically Necessary Breaks Under FMLA May not be Compensable Time

On April 12, 2018 the Department of Labor ("DOL") issued a letter clarifying whether employees must be paid for medically necessary breaks from work. The Supreme Court has previously held that employees must be paid for breaks primarily benefiting the employer. Other courts have defined these as short rest breaks of up to 20 minutes which reenergized the employees. Conversely, employers are not required to pay employees for breaks which are primarily for the benefit of the employee. The DOL letter ruled that breaks which are medically necessary, and constitute an accommodation under the Family Medical Leave Act, are primarily for the benefit of the employee. DOL finds that, because the employees are the primary beneficiaries of these breaks, employers are not required to compensate employees for FMLA break times. The Opinion Letter can be found at this link.
https://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/FLSA/2018/2018_04_12_02_FLSA.pdf

Address

3201 White Oak Drive
Houston, TX
77007

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Labor & ERISA Lawyers posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Labor & ERISA Lawyers:

Share