Category Archives: Legislation

January 24, 2017

New Mexico Legislature Considers Significant Employment Bills

The New Mexico Legislature is one week into its 60-day session, which ends on March 18, 2017. Legislators have introduced a number of bills that, if enacted, would affect employment laws for private employers in New Mexico. Here are the highlights of the most significant employment-related bills presently being considered.

Increasing the Minimum Wage

HB 27, introduced by Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), would increase the state minimum wage from $7.50 to $15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2018. On January 1 of each successive year, the state minimum wage would automatically increase to account for a cost of living increase using a percentage set by the United States Department of Labor’s consumer price index for all urban customers (CPI-U). The bill also would eliminate the lower minimum wage provision for employees who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips.HB 27 has been sent to the House Business and Industry Committee, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Business and Industry Committee.

HB 67, introduced by Rep. Miguel P. Garcia (D-Bernalillo), would increase the state minimum wage from $7.50 to $8.40 per hour on January 1, 2018, to $9.20 per hour on January 1, 2019, and to $10.10 per hour on January 1, 2020. In a provision that apparently conflicts with this schedule of set rates for each year, HB 67 also calls for a cost of living increase of the previous year’s minimum wage rate using the percentage tied to the CPI-U. HB 67 would modify the lower minimum wage provision for tipped employees from $2.13 per hour to a rate that is forty percent of the state minimum wage for non-tipped employees.HB 67 has been sent to the House Labor and Economic Development Committee, and referred to the House Business and Industry Committee and the House Labor and Economic Development Committee.

SB 36, introduced by Sen. William P. Soules (D-Doña Ana), would increase the state minimum wage to $8.45 per hour, effective July 1, 2017, with an annual cost of living increase on January 1 of each successive year, to be set by the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions based upon the CPI-U, and rounded to the nearest multiple of five cents. SB 36 would provide for an exception for small businesses, allowing employers with ten or fewer employees to continue to pay the current $7.50 hourly minimum wage, adjusted annually on January 1 of each following year, if there is a cost of living increase. SB 36 also includes a trainee exception which would permit employers with ten or more employees to pay trainees a minimum wage of $7.50 per hour for the first six months of employment, again with that rate subject to a cost of living increase on January 1 of each following year, if any. SB 36 would also increase the minimum wage for tipped employees to $2.65 per hour, to be adjusted annually. SB 36 has been sent to the Senate Public Affairs Committee, and referred to the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee and the Senate Public Affairs Committee.

Employee Leave

Caregiver Leave Act: HB 86, introduced by Reps. Deborah A. Armstrong (D-Bernailillo), and Michael Padilla (D-Bernalillo), would require employers that offer sick leave for an employee’s own illness, to allow accrued sick time to be used by employees to care for sick family members under the same terms and procedures that the employer imposes for any other use of sick leave by the employee. Family members would be defined as a person related within a third degree of consanguity or affinity to the employee. The bill would prohibit retaliation against an employee for requesting or using caregiver leave, filing a complaint with the Department of Workforce Solutions for violation of the Caregiver Leave Act, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of the Act, or opposing any policy, practice or act prohibited by the Act. HB 86 has been sent to the House Health & Human Services Committee, where it is set for hearing on January 25, 2017, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Health and Human Services Committee.

Military Reemployment Amendment: HB 83, introduced by Rep. Debbie Rodella (D-Rio Arriba, Santa Fe and Taos), would extend New Mexico’s existing law protecting the reemployment of persons in the armed forces to those that have served in the national guard of any other state or territory of the United States, clarifying that the protections are not limited only to members of the New Mexico national guard.HB 83 has been sent to the House State Government, Indian & Veterans’ Affairs Committee and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House State Government, Indian & Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Pregnancy Discrimination and Accommodation Bill

Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act: HB 179, introduced by Reps. Gail Chasey (D-Bernalillo), Deborah A. Armstrong (D-Bernalillo), and Joanne J. Ferrary (D-Doña Ana), would require employers of four or more employees to reasonably accommodate a known limitation arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions. Reasonable accommodations would include modifying or adapting an employee’s work environment, work rules, or job responsibilities for as long as necessary to enable an employee with limitations due to pregnancy or childbirth or a related condition to perform the job, absent an undue hardship on the employer. The proposed law sets forth a number of factors to determine what may constitute an undue hardship.

December 22, 2016

Small Employers Permitted To Reinstate Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

By Kevin Selzer

With the health and welfare benefit plan industry eyeing potential regulatory changes under a Trump administration, President Barack Obama signed into law a new rule that partially restores health plan flexibility restricted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The 21st Century Cures Act (Act) allows small employers to establish arrangements that reimburse employees for premiums on health coverage that is not maintained by the employer (e.g., coverage obtained by an employee on a state exchange/marketplace).

Background On HRAs and the ACA

In 2013, the IRS released guidance stating that an employer arrangement designed to reimburse premiums for non-employer maintained health coverage (on a pre-tax or after-tax basis) is a group health plan that violates certain ACA reforms. This guidance was widely viewed to prevent employers from using a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), integrated with non-employer maintained health coverage, as a way of circumventing the ACA employer mandate (for large employers). However, the guidance applied to all employers, much to the ire of small employers, many of whom relied on these arrangements to provide a pre-tax cost-effective health benefit. Certain transition relief was provided for small employers, but the relief ended in mid-2015. As a result, many small employers were left out in the cold.

Small employers responded in different ways. Some adopted stipend or similar programs, whereby employees would be paid additional taxable compensation without strings attached (i.e., the employee could decide to use the amounts for health coverage or not). The end-result, however, was that tax-favored health benefits were generally limited to employers capable of sponsoring a major medical health plan.

21st Century Cures Act Permits Certain HRAs

The Act permits certain small employers to sponsor arrangements that will reimburse employees on a pre-tax basis (if certain conditions are met) for amounts incurred for independent (non-employer maintained) health coverage, including health insurance premiums. These arrangements, called qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangements (QSEHRAs), must meet the following requirements:

permitted only for small employers, defined as those who did not have an average of 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, in the prior year;
the employer may not otherwise offer a group health plan to any employees;
the employer must offer the QSEHRA to all employees (with certain limited exceptions);
the maximum annual benefit is $4,950 for reimbursements of employee-only coverage and $10,000 for reimbursements of family coverage;
the reimbursement will be nontaxable if the eligible employee demonstrates that he or she has minimum essential coverage; and
the employer must provide eligible employees with notice containing required disclosures.

The rule changes are intended to be effective January 1, 2017.

October 4, 2016

Employment Contracts with California Employees Require California Law

By Jude Biggs

Beginning January 1, 2017, employers may not require a California employee to agree to litigate claims in a state other than California or to apply the law of another state to disputes that arose in California. These new restrictions pose particular problems for companies headquartered outside of California who employ workers in California.

New CA Labor Code Section 925

Recently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, Senate Bill 1241 adds section 925 to the California Labor Code. It provides that an employer “shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following:

Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California.
Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.”

In other words, an employer may not force an employee who primarily works and lives in California to enter into an employment agreement, as a condition of employment, that provides that any claims must be resolved, either in court or by arbitration, in another state (a so-called forum-selection clause) or that another state’s law, which offers less protection to the employee than California law, will apply (a choice-of-law provision).

Why It Matters

California law is typically more pro-employee than other states’ laws. For instance, California law prohibits employers from requiring employees to waive their right to a jury trial before a dispute arises and places substantial restrictions on arbitration agreements. It also requires the payment of business expenses, where many other states do not.

Multi-state companies frequently seek to create some uniformity and predictability in where employment disputes will be litigated so they insert a venue clause into their employment agreements. Such clauses often provide that disputes must be heard in the state where the business is based or where its legal team is located, regardless of where the employee lives or works. Similarly, companies may write into contracts that the law to be applied is that of the state where they are headquartered or incorporated. This offers the business uniformity across all its operations and helps to avoid onerous employment laws in certain states.

The new Labor Code section 925 makes non-California venue and choice-of-law provisions virtually unenforceable per se for California employees, when made a condition of employment. If an employee has to go to court to enforce his or her rights to have a case in California and to use California law in the case, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the employee. Read more >>

June 6, 2016

Colorado’s New Pregnancy Accommodation Law

Effective August 10, 2016, Colorado employers will commit an unfair employment practice if they fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee, or an applicant for employment, for health conditions related to pregnancy or physical recovery from childbirth, absent an undue hardship. Last week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law House Bill 16-1438 which requires Colorado employers to engage in an interactive process to assess potential reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees for conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. The new law, section 24-34-402.3 of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, also prohibits employers from denying employment opportunities based on the need to make a pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation and from retaliating against employees and applicants that request or use a pregnancy-related accommodation.

Posting and Notification Requirements

The new law imposes posting and notification requirements on Colorado employers. By December 8, 2016 (120 days from the effective date), employers must provide current employees with written notice of their rights under this provision. Thereafter, employers also must provide written notice of the right to be free from discriminatory or unfair employment practices under this law to every new hire at the start of their employment. Employers in Colorado also must post a written notice of rights in a conspicuous place at their business in an area accessible to employees.

For more information on this new law, read our full post about its requirements here.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 2, 2016

Colorado Bill Will Give Employees Right to Review Their Personnel Files

By Brad Williams

Most employees in Colorado currently have no legal right to review or copy their personnel files. But that is about to change. A bill awaiting signature by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will require private employers to allow employees to inspect and copy their personnel files at least annually upon request. If enacted, House Bill 16-1432 will also grant former employees the right to inspect their personnel files one time after termination of employment. Once signed, the bill will become effective on January 1, 2017.

Employers Must Allow Access to Pre-Existing Personnel Files

Under the bill, employers are not required to create or keep personnel files for current or former employees. They are also not required to retain any particular documents that are – or were – in an employee’s personnel file for any particular period of time. However, if a personnel file exists when an employee asks to inspect it, the employer must allow access.

The inspection should take place at the employer’s office and at a time convenient for both parties. Employers may have a manager of personnel data, or another employee of their choosing, present during the inspection. If an employee asks to copy some or all of his or her file, the employer may require payment of reasonable copying costs. Because the bill is silent regarding whether employees may bring others (such as their lawyers) to inspections, employers should likely limit inspections to only the requesting employees.

What Constitutes a “Personnel File”?

The bill defines a “personnel file” as an employee’s personnel records which are used to determine his or her qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, employment termination, or other disciplinary action. This encompasses both records kept in an actual file, and those employers may collect through reasonable efforts. Put differently, employers cannot avoid the bill’s mandates by simply scattering employee records amongst multiple file cabinets.

The bill provides numerous exceptions to the documents that must be made available for inspection. The following are not included in the definition of “personnel files” and need not be made available:

documents required to be placed or maintained in a separate file from the regular personnel file by federal or state law;
records pertaining to confidential reports from previous employers;
an active criminal or disciplinary investigation, or an active investigation by a regulatory agency; and
information which identifies another person who made a confidential accusation against the requesting employee.

May 11, 2016

Colorado Pregnancy Accommodation Bill Passes

The Colorado legislature passed House Bill 16-1438 requiring Colorado employers to engage in an interactive process to assess potential reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees for conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. The bill, expected to be signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper, will ensure that employers engage in the interactive process, provide reasonable accommodations to eligible individuals, prohibit retaliation against employees and applicants that request or use a pregnancy-related accommodation, and provide notice of employee rights under this law. Once signed by the Governor, the new law will go into effect on August 10, 2016.

Pregnancy-Related Workplace Accommodations

This law will add a new section, section 24-34-402.3, to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, making it an unfair employment practice for you to fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for an applicant for employment, or an employee, for health conditions related to pregnancy or physical recovery from childbirth, absent an undue hardship on your business. You also may not deny employment opportunities based on the need to make a pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation.

Interactive Accommodation Process

You will need to engage in a “timely, good-faith, and interactive process” with the applicant or employee to determine effective reasonable accommodations.

Examples of reasonable accommodations include but are not limited to:

more frequent or longer breaks
more frequent restroom, food and water breaks
obtaining or modifying equipment or seating
temporary transfer to a less strenuous or hazardous position, if available (with return to the current position after pregnancy)
light duty, if available
job restructuring
limiting lifting
assistance with manual labor, or
modified work schedules.

In engaging in this process, you need to be sure to document your good-faith efforts to identify and make reasonable accommodations because doing so can negate punitive damages if an individual sues you for failure to make a pregnancy-related accommodation. You may require that the employee or applicant provide a note from her health care provider stating the need for a reasonable accommodation.

No Forced Accommodations or Leave

Under the new law, you may not force an applicant or employee affected by pregnancy-related conditions to accept an accommodation that she has not requested, or that is unnecessary to perform the essential function of her job. Similarly, you may not require a pregnant employee to take leave if there is another reasonable accommodation that may be provided. As stated in the legislative declaration for the bill, the intent is to keep pregnant women employed and generating income so forcing pregnant women to take time off during or after their pregnancy generally is not permitted.

Analyzing Undue Hardship Of Accommodations

Reasonable accommodations may be denied if they impose an undue hardship on your business. That requires an analysis of the following factors in order to decide whether the accommodation would require significant difficulty or expense:

the nature and cost of the accommodation
the overall financial resources of the employer
the overall size of the employer’s business with respect to the number of employees and the number, type, and location of the available facilities, and
the accommodation’s effect on expenses and resources or its impact on the operations of the employer.

Broad Definition of “Adverse Action” in Retaliation Prohibition

The new law prohibits you from taking adverse action against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation for a pregnancy-related condition. An adverse action is defined very broadly as “an action where a reasonable employee would have found the action materially adverse, such that it might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” This approach harkens to the NLRB’s use of a “chilling effect” on employee rights as a basis for unfair labor charges. By not limiting an adverse action to concrete actions, such as a termination, demotion, pay reduction, or similar actions, the broad definition opens the door to a wide range of employer responses that could be deemed retaliation.

Notifying Employees of Their Rights

If signed into law, you will have until December 8, 2016 (120 days from the effective date) to provide current employees with written notice of their rights under this provision. Thereafter, you also must provide written notice of the right to be free from discriminatory or unfair employment practices under this law to every new hire at the start of their employment. You also have to post the written notice in a conspicuous place at your business in an area accessible to employees.

What To Do Now

With enactment almost certain, prepare now to comply with this new pregnancy accommodation requirement. A checklist of action items includes:

Review and update job descriptions to designate essential functions of each job.
Update your accommodation policies and handbook to include pregnancy-related accommodations and information on how employees may request such an accommodation.
Train your supervisors, managers, and human resources department on the new accommodation requirements and the anti-retaliation provision.
Prepare written notifications of employee rights to send to current employees no later than December 8, 2016.
Include the written notification of rights in your onboarding materials so that after December 8, 2016, all new hires receive the notice.
Post the written notification of rights in a conspicuous place accessible to employees, such as your lunch room bulletin boards, intranet, or wherever other required employment law posters are posted.

March 23, 2016

Idaho’s Non-Compete Law Set to Enhance Employer Enforcement

By A. Dean Bennett

Idaho businesses will have an easier time enforcing non-compete agreements that restrict key employees and independent contractors from engaging in post-employment competition, thanks to a bill passed by the Idaho legislature this week. HB 487 provides that if a court finds that a key employee or key independent contractor breaches a non-compete agreement, a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm is established. The burden of overcoming that presumption shifts to the former employee to show that he or she has no ability to adversely affect the employer’s legitimate business interests. The bill was sent on Tuesday to Governor Otter, who is expected to sign it into law.

Pro-Business Non-Compete Provision

While some neighboring states, such as Utah, have passed legislation to restrict the use of non-competes and other post-employment restrictive covenants, Idaho has strengthened its non-compete law in favor of protecting employer rights. Not without controversy, this bill reportedly grew out of a recent lawsuit filed by LeapFox Learning, a Meridian computer training company, against its former business director. LeapFox Learning’s owner, Codi Galloway, reportedly testified before the Idaho Senate and Human Resources Committee, that after her former business director left to work for a competitor, she lost customers, vendors, and contractors as a result of that ex-employee’s use of LeapFox Learning’s company’s contact lists and marketing and business strategies.

Tough Burden For Employees To Overcome

Opponents of the bill argued that it infringes on an employee’s ability to change jobs and move to a better position or even start his or her own company. In addition, by placing the burden to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm on the former employee, it essentially forces the employee to prove a negative, namely that he or she cannot harm the former employer’s business. Assistant Chief Deputy Brian Kane is quoted in the Idaho Statesman as saying, “The burden necessary to overcome this presumption may be extremely difficult, if not impossible.”

Proponents, however, reply that the presumption of irreparable harm applies only to non-competes of key employees or key independent contractors, which are defined as the highest paid five percent of employees or independent contractors. Consequently, the amendment will not change enforcement proceedings for non-competes involving lower level employees.

Review Non-Competes For Idaho Compliance

To take advantage of numerous rebuttable presumptions contained in Idaho’s non-compete law, employers should review their non-competes to make certain they do not exceed the time, geographic, and business scope parameters deemed reasonable under the law. In particular, review section 44-2704 of the Idaho Code or consult with competent legal counsel to ensure your restrictive covenants protect your business assets in the best way possible.

If you have any questions about the new bill, or your company’s non-compete agreements, contact Dean Bennett atadbennett@hollandhart.com or 208-383-3993.

January 4, 2016

Pregnancy-Related Accommodation Bill To Be Introduced in Colorado Legislature

Following the national trend, a bill to be introduced during Colorado’s next legislative session intends to expand protection for pregnancy-related leave. Specifically, the draft bill would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees for conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. If passed, the bill would mean that employers must engage in an interactive process to assess potential reasonable accommodations, provide notice of employee rights, and refrain from retaliating against employees and applicants that request or use a pregnancy-related accommodation.

With the 2016 Colorado legislative session set to convene on January 13th, here are the highlights of the draft bill.

Reasonable Accommodation Requirement

Under the draft bill, an employer would commit an unfair employment practice if it refuses to make a reasonable accommodation for a job applicant or an employee for conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business. Employers would need to engage in a good-faith interactive process with the employee to determine possible, effective reasonable accommodations.

Most employers should be familiar with the interactive process as it should be used when assessing accommodations for qualified individuals with a disability. Possible reasonable accommodations listed in the draft bill include more frequent or longer break periods, temporary transfer to a less strenuous or hazardous position, job restructuring, light duty, time off to recover from childbirth, acquisition or modification of equipment, seating, assistance with manual labor, modified schedules, and break-time and private non-bathroom space for expressing breast milk. Employers would not be required hire new employees, or discharge, transfer, or promote another employee in order to make a reasonable accommodation.

The bill would further prohibit employers from requiring an applicant or employee to accept a reasonable accommodation that the individual chooses not to accept. The bill also would prevent employers from requiring an employee to take leave if there are other reasonable accommodations that may be made. These provisions seem to suggest that the employee has veto power over offered accommodations. This differs significantly from disability law as under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer meets its reasonable accommodation duty if it provides an accommodation that allows the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, even if that accommodation is not the one preferred by the employee.

Undue Hardship Analysis

An “undue hardship” is defined in the bill as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense proven by the employer. Factoring into that determination would be:

the nature and cost of the accommodation
the overall financial resources of the employer
the overall size of the employer’s business with respect to the number of employees and the number, type, and location of the available facilities, and
the accommodation’s effect on expenses and resources or its impact on the operations of the employer.

If the employer provides a similar accommodation to other classes of employees, it will be presumed that the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship. Employers would have to rebut that presumption if they fail to offer the same or similar accommodation for pregnancy-related conditions.

Retaliation Prohibited

Employers would be prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation for a pregnancy-related condition. An adverse action is defined in the bill as a retaliatory action, such as the failure to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other applicable service credits.

Notice and Posting Requirement

If this bill were to become law, employers would be required to provide employees with written notice of their rights under this provision. New employees would have to be provided the written notice at the start of their employment. Additionally, employers would have ten days to provide the notice to individual employees who inform their employer of their pregnancy. There is also a provision to notify existing employees within a specified time after the effective date of the new law. Finally, employers would be required to post the written notice in a conspicuous place at their business in an area accessible to employees.

Likelihood of Bill Passage

Remember that at present, this bill is only a draft and after it is introduced in the House, it will be assigned to a committee. There are many opportunities for legislators to amend, add, or delete provisions in the bill throughout the legislative process.

That said, some form of the bill stands a reasonable chance of passage within the Democratically controlled Colorado House. It has less chance of success in the Republican-controlled Senate. We will watch to see if other legislators add their names as co-sponsors, or if an alternative (perhaps less onerous) bill is introduced in the Senate. We will track this bill and keep you informed of any important developments.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 25, 2015

Affordable Care Act Survives Challenge: Tax Credits Available For Federal Exchanges

By Bret Busacker and Gabe Hamilton

To avoid an economic “death spiral” of insurance markets, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court relied on context and policy to resolve an ambiguity in the statute, supporting the ACA’s tax credit in states where the health care exchange is established by the federal government.

An Exchange Established by the State-or the Federal Government

The question before the Court was whether the ACA’s tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a health exchange established by the federal government, or only to those in states where the exchange was established by the state. The ACA provides that individuals are only eligible for premium tax credits under the ACA if the individual obtains insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” But the Act also provides that if a state fails to set up its own exchange, the federal government will establish “such Exchange.”

The Internal Revenue Service issued a regulation making ACA premium tax credits available regardless of whether the exchange was established and operated by the state or the federal government. The parties challenging that IRS regulation in this case argued that tax credits should not be available in states with a federal exchange as that was not an exchange “established by the State.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the challengers’ “plain-meaning” arguments were strong, but concluded that the context and structure of the statutory phrase meant that Congress intended the tax credits to apply to eligible individuals purchasing insurance on any exchange created under the ACA. He wrote that the statute is ambiguous and that plain meaning of a statute is but one means the Court uses to resolve an ambiguity. In this instance, context and structure of the statute were more persuasive.

Roberts noted that Congress passed the ACA to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. He cited studies that suggested that if tax credits did not apply to federal exchanges, premiums would increase between 35-47 percent and enrollment would decrease by about 70 percent. He wrote, “It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner.”

Tax Credits Are One of The ACA’s Key Reforms

The Court defined the tax credit scheme as one of the ACA’s three key health insurance reforms. The first key reform is the “guaranteed issue” requirement, which prevents insurance companies from denying health care insurance based on a person’s health, and a “community rating” requirement, which prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to those in bad health.

The second key reform is the individual insurance mandate, requiring individuals to have health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty. This reform is designed to get more healthy people into the insurance pool, lowering premiums across the board. Individuals are exempt from this requirement if the cost of buying insurance would exceed eight percent of their income.

The third key reform is providing tax credits to certain individuals in order to make insurance more affordable. People with household incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible to purchase health insurance on the exchange with tax credits which are provided directly to the insurance provider. The availability of premium tax credits through state and federal exchanges is seen as essential in getting more individuals insured and spreading the risk pool.

Acknowledging that the ACA included many instances of “inartful drafting,” the Court decided that limiting tax credits to state exchanges would gut the second and third key reforms in states with a federal exchange. The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement would result in insurance markets plunging into a “death spiral.” The Court concluded that Congress meant for all of the key reforms to apply in every state, including those with federal exchanges.

Result: No Change for Employers in ACA Requirements

By upholding the tax credit scheme in all states regardless of whether an exchange was set up by the state or the federal government, the Supreme Court supported the overall scheme of the ACA. Although Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent that was joined by two other justices, the ACA remains intact. Employers should continue to comply with all applicable ACA requirements.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 6, 2015

Colorado Legislators Fail to Pass New Employment Laws in 2015

By Emily Hobbs-Wright

The 2015 Colorado legislative session is ready to adjourn and few substantive bills related to labor and employment were passed by both chambers this session. Numerous bills on topics such as minimum wage, overtime and discrimination were introduced but with Republicans controlling the Colorado Senate and Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, it’s no surprise that little was enacted. Here's a look at employment-related bills that were considered this session.

Raise Colorado’s Minimum Wage – Concurrent resolutions in both the House and Senate sought to put Colorado’s minimum wage on the November 2016 ballot to allow voters to decide whether to amend the Colorado Constitution to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour on January 1, 2017 with annual increases of $1.00 per hour until 2020, which would see a $12.50 minimum wage. In years thereafter, the minimum wage would be increased annually for inflation (which is the current adjustment provided in Colorado’s Constitution). Both bills failed. (HCR15-1001 and SCR15-003)

Overtime Fairness Act – This bill would have set a minimum salary requirement for administrative, executive, supervisor and professional exemptions at 120 times the state minimum hourly wage rate. At the current $8.23 minimum wage, the salary threshold would be $987.60 per week. This bill failed to pass. (HB15-1331)

Repeal of the Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013 – The 2013 law that established compensatory and punitive damage remedies for unfair employment practices under Colorado law was under attack in two bills. The Senate passed a bill that would have repealed all components of the 2013 law except for the expansion of age-based discrimination to individuals age 70 or older. (SB15-069) The House killed that bill. A separate bill introduced in the House sought to eliminate the punitive damage provision of the 2013 law. (HB15-1172) That bill never got out of the House.

Expand and Extend Parental Involvement in K-12 Education Act – The current Colorado law that entitles parents to take time off of work to attend their child’s academic activities is set to expire on September 1, 2015. This bill sought to extend the law indefinitely and to expand the types of academic activities for which parents could take this leave. The bill passed in the House but never got out of the Senate committee to which it was assigned. (HB15-1221)

Limit on Audits Performed by the Department of Labor and Employment – This bill sought to amend Colorado’s employment verification law by limiting audits by the Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE). Under this provision, the CDLE would be permitted to investigate only an employer’s compliance with the employment verification and examination requirements. This bill never got out of the House committee to which it was assigned. (HB15-1176)

Right of Private-Sector Employees to Inspect Their Personnel Files – This proposal would have created a right for employees and former employees to inspect or request copies of their personnel file within 30 days of a written request. This bill failed to pass the House. (HB15-1342)

Independent Contractor Determinations – Two bills sought to change the determination of independent contractor status under Colorado’s unemployment insurance law. The first sought to eliminate the requirement that the individual’s freedom from control and direction of the company must be shown “to the satisfaction of the division.” (SB15-107) This bill never got out of committee. The second bill before the Senate sought to create a bright-line test for whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. That bill proposed to establish a numerical standard so that an independent contractor relationship would be recognized if at least six of eleven factors listed in the proposed provision were found to exist. This bill, SB15-269, was introduced rather late in the session and at the time of writing (and with just one week before the session adjourns), was still in committee.

Additional bills were introduced that would have affected some Colorado employers, including a bill to require that youth sports organizations conduct criminal history checks on persons who work with children and a bill that would create an income tax credit for employers who assist employees in repaying their student loans for degrees in certain fields, such as science, technology and math. These bill also failed to make it to the Governor’s desk.

Wrap-Up: A Quiet Session for Colorado Employers

Colorado's legislative session adjourns for the year today, May 6th, and it concludes without Colorado employers having to learn new employment-related laws. Accordingly, on the state level, most of our labor laws are remaining status quo for another year. However, with so many recent changes related to federal employment laws, most Colorado employers will consider the lack of any new state employee protections good news.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.