If You Have A Preexisting Condition, Choose COBRA or ObamaCare Over Your Mortgage

It used to be that when people lost their jobs, there was only one way to keep insurance coverage, and that was COBRA. The only problem is that when you lose your job, you have to pick and choose what bills to pay and COBRA is crazy expensive. Most people had to go bare. If they had preexisting conditions, it was literally a matter of life and death because they would never get insurance again.

Then came the Affordable Care Act, which is the same as ObamaCare if you haven't already figured that out. The ACA allowed people who lost their jobs to get alternative insurance that was much cheaper than COBRA. Plus, it both banned insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions and also from charging more to those with preexisting conditions. So, yes, insurance rates went up for those who were healthy, but it saved billions in government-subsidized healthcare. The reason being that anyone who was uninsured had to go to publicly funded hospitals for all their healthcare needs.

Since the election, I've been warning people who lose their jobs to make sure they elect either ACA or COBRA, and under no circumstances to lose coverage if they have a preexisting condition because I thought preexisting condition coverage would be lost when Trump and the Republicans started to gut the ACA.

I've been accused of being an alarmist, but that's exactly what the latest proposal would do. While it would still prohibit insurers from denying health insurance to those with preexisting conditions, it allows them to raise premiums. A recent study made these findings:

Based on our analysis, we estimate that individuals with even relatively mild pre-existing conditions would pay thousands of dollars above standard rates to obtain coverage. For example, because an individual with asthma costs an issuer 106 percent more than a healthy 40-year-old, she would face a premium surcharge of $4,340. The surcharge for diabetes would be $5,600 per year. Coverage could become prohibitively expensive for those in dire need of care: Insurers would charge about $17,320 more in premiums for pregnancy, $26,580 more for rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders, and $142,650 more for patients with metastatic cancer.

Because there are few things that can bankrupt you as quickly as medical bills, if you lose your job and have to choose between paying your mortgage and paying for insurance, the wise decision might just be to pay for insurance. While your mortgage company may work with you to allow you time to catch up, losing your coverage if the Republicans manage to repeal preexisting condition coverage may literally kill you.

If you care about this, call your Congress member and Senator now and tell them to stop this folly before they kill a bunch of people.

Fox Proves It: Sexual Harassment Is Contagious

I've always said that sexual harassment is not about sex: it's about power. In that way it's just another form of bullying. And if you remember your playground bullies, if they got away with it once, they accelerated their behavior. Sexual harassers, like bullies, engage in more and more extreme behavior until someone stops them.

The other thing about playground bullies is that their behavior is contagious. Some weaker personality chimes in to get approval from the alpha bully. Then others join in the bullying. Well, it happens with sexual harassment too, and Fox just proved it.

We have all seen the headlines. First it was Roger Ailes, the alpha harasser, who got away with sexual harassment for years before he was ousted. His behavior set the tone for the entire corporation.

From there, the women at Fox were emboldened, and they spoke up against Bill O'Reilly. After millions in payouts, the network finally got rid of him too. But it took a long, long time, didn't it?

And now there's a new allegation, this time about Sean Hannity. I'm not surprised if it's true, because sexual harassment is truly contagious. If one gets away with it, then it spreads. If this really happened, then I bet others will come forward.

This is yet another reason for employers to take sexual harassment complaints seriously. If the victim is ignored or fired, if the harasser is allowed to continue, then pretty soon you have a full-blown Animal House at work. And does any shareholder really want that going on? Does that in any way help the work get done? No, of course not. It's a distraction. It destroys morale. And as the Fox multi-million payouts demonstrate, it ultimately destroys the bottom line.

Women were afraid to report the harassment at Fox, until the first woman finally stood up, and then others came forward. That's just what happens with those playground bullies: when the first kid stands up to them then others get the nerve to stand up too. Which means that reporting sexual harassment is also contagious.

When the company takes the sexual harassment complaint seriously and makes sure the harasser is stopped, then other victims won't be afraid to come forward.

So, HR folks, take those sexual harassment complaints seriously and stop those harassers the first time they harass. Or ultimately they'll grab you in the p***y and you shouldn't be surprised.

And victims of sexual harassment, try to come forward. You have to report it to HR and give them a chance to fix it according to the Supreme Court, and that's very, very hard. But if you don't report it, then the harasser will do it to other women, and the harassment will get worse. It may even spread. If you stand up to the harasser, then other women will be empowered to stand up for themselves.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No Asking About Applicant Salary History

In a movement that started in Massachusetts, states and cities are starting to ban employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The reason behind the legislation is that basing pay on prior salary can lock in pay discrimination. The sponsor of the Philadelphia ordinance explained: “Simply put, when a woman is paid less at the beginning of her career she will continue to earn less throughout her career. By eliminating the question of salary history we will be one step closer to decreasing the wage gap.”

The Massachusetts law makes it illegal to:

[S]eek the salary history of any prospective employee from any current or former employer; provided, however, that a prospective employee may provide written authorization to a prospective employer to confirm prior wages, including benefits or other compensation or salary history only after any offer of employment with compensation has been made to the prospective employee.

New York is the most recent city to ban salary history inquiries. Puerto Rico also has a salary history ban. Similar proposed laws are pending in D.C., California, New Jersey, New York State and in Congress (that one won't pass, but it's a nice try).

This is a good move to try to end the pay gap that still exists between men and women. It could well help stop the cycle of pay disparity for women and minorities.

And really, what business is it of anybody what you make now? Employers should know what they plan to pay for a job and actually pay it. While nothing stops you from saying no to such inquiries now, unless you're a highly sought after recruit saying no may end the interview.

For multistate employers, this may have an impact on the way they conduct interviews and prepare applications now. For others, now is the time to start rethinking this outdated and unduly nosy practice.

Trump Says It's Okay For Federal Contractors To Break Employment Laws

Another week, another prediction sadly fulfilled. On December 2, I did a list of executive orders protecting employees of federal contractors that I predicted would be rescinded under Trump. A very important one just bit the dust.

The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule provided two important protections for employees that are now gone:

Blacklisting for employment/labor law violations: Anyone applying or bidding for a federal contract of $500,000 or more was required to disclose any employment or labor law violation. They had to disclose any administrative merit determination, arbitral award or decision, or civil judgment rendered against them within the preceding three-year period for a violation of any of a list of labor and employment laws, plus they have to update their violation information every six months and, for some contracts, obtain the same violation information from their covered subcontractors. This meant that federal contractors needed to be very afraid of things like a "cause" finding from EEOC. Punishment for repeat offenders could be up to cancellation or denial of a contract.

I predicted that employers would fear no more because they knew the rule would be gone soon.

No mandatory arbitration: The same executive order also banned agreements that require mandatory arbitration for discrimination and sexual harassment claims. Specifically, "for all contracts where the estimated value of the supplies acquired and services required exceeds $1 million, provisions in solicitations and clauses in contracts shall provide that contractors agree that the decision to arbitrate claims arising under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment may only be made with the voluntary consent of employees or independent contractors after such disputes arise." This also applied to subcontractors providing services or supplies over $1 million.

Federal contractors may now resume requiring employees to arbitrate.

Sad.

New Bills In Florida That Will Impact #Employees If Passed

The Florida legislature is in session through May. They may or may not pass some legislation that will affect employees and employment law. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Here are some of the bills to watch:

SB 160 - Minimum Wage: Revising the formula for the adjusted state minimum wage, etc.  See HB 945. This is an attempt to slowly bring Florida's minimum wage up to a living wage by adjusting an extra $1 - $1.50 per year until 2021. Since Republicans hate the minimum wage to begin with, it won't pass. 

SCR 194:  The annual and inevitably failing attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Sigh.

HB 319:  Discrimination in Labor and Employment: Creates "Helen Gordon Davis Fair Pay Protection Act." This bill, which won't pass. would add gender identity to the categories of illegal discrimination, prohibit pay and other discrimination based on sex and gender identity,  and prohibit employers from punishing employees for discussing and comparing wages and benefits. 

HB 443:  Verification of Employment Eligibility: Requires employers to use E-Verify system to verify employment eligibility; prohibits employer from knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized alien. This bill really has more of an impact on employers, and criminalizes the hiring of illegal aliens. However, it will make it more difficult for anyone with an accent or foreign-sounding name to get a job if employers become skittish about possible jail time for a bad hiring decision. This one has a shot at getting passed as we continue anti-immigrant fever in this country, but I'm guessing the Chambers and business interests will freak out and oppose it. My prediction is it probably won't pass.

HB 623:  Prohibited Discrimination: Provides that sexual orientation & gender identity are impermissible grounds for discrimination, provides exception for constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.  Related bills are SB 666, HB 659, SB 742. Despite the fact that major corporations and business interests support this, and the fact that it will be good for Florida's tourism and economic interests, this has failed every time it has been attempted. It will fail again.

HB 1255:  Florida Commission on Human Relations. This bill would adjust quorum requirements for the Commission and would make clear that the statute of limitations for suing for discrimination is 4 years from the date of discrimination, which is the law now but is continually the subject of litigation. Mostly, it guts the discrimination provisions regarding private clubs. It could pass.

HB 7047: Would deregulate/change regulations regarding a huge list of professions, including labor organizations.

Guns in workplaces: There is a giant batch of pro-gun legislation pending that could well pass, and it will affect workplace safety and also employee rights to carry. These bills include the right to bring guns to colleges and universities, passenger terminals of airports, public meetings, basically anywhere, career centers,  athletic events of schools and colleges,  the Florida legislature (okay, this would serve them right). Then there's SB 140 and SB 646 that would make Florida an open carry state. If business organizations aren't freaking out and screaming bloody murder, they should be. Can you imagine what will happen if a bunch of Floridians are running around with guns in all these places? Mayhem will ensue. And then there's the one that is the voice in the wilderness that would increase penalties for carrying weapons into schools and school events. It won't pass. Neither will the one adding public theaters and performing arts centers to the list of places you can't carry weapons.

Medical marijuana: Of the many bills relating to marijuana use, not one would protect employees from being fired for using prescribed marijuana, even the low THC kind. For shame.

SB 1208: Would add intentional touching in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering such areas to the crime of sexual battery, which could give sexual harassment victims more ammunition. It's by a Democrat so it probably won't pass.

SB 1148: Unemployment compensation. Would provide for an alternate base period for those currently being screwed out of unemployment benefits for arbitrary calendar reasons, would punish employers who refuse to give wage/employment info (which happens all the time now and delays unemployment benefits by weeks or months) and would add to the reasons an employee can resign and still get benefits. There is no way this will pass. Florida has done everything it can to screw people out of their unemployment benefits and will continue to do so.

HB 575: Threats to kill or do bodily harm. This one will affect many employees. It makes it a felony to post on the Internet or in social media, as well as email, etc. any threat to kill or do bodily harm. This means anyone who posts, "I could just kill my boss for what happened today," or "I could just strangle my coworker," whether or not there was any intent to do the harm and whether or not it was just venting, could face felony charges. This bill could be crazy overbroad and could result in lots of employees ending up in handcuffs. Right now, the threat has to be made to the actual person. Now, if anyone else sees the threat you can be prosecuted.

HB 561: Providing for a veteran's preference tax credit, which may help veterans get employment.

HB 31: Would "ban the box" and prohibit employers from asking about arrests/convictions and from refusing to interview based on criminal arrests and convictions. They can still do background checks once a conditional offer of employment is made. It won't pass.

SB 126: Would loosen the state's anti-nepotism laws. Somebody has a relative who needs a job. Could it be somebody who also wants to turn the state into the wild west? Could be.

HB 11: Would make it way easier to decertify labor organizations/labor unions. It will probably pass.

The good news is there are no bathroom bills this year. Will the legislature do anything to help employees this year? Not likely. I'll let you know if they do.

Climate Change Denial To Be New Protected #Emplaw Category?

Yes, I've been absent for a bit. I was caught up in an arbitration (results unknown at this point) so had a good excuse. Anyhow, I saw this tidbit and had to share it. A Maine lawmaker has proposed a bill that would make an employee's opinions about climate change a legally protected category.

To his credit (or maybe he just didn't think it through), although the stated purpose of the bill is to protect climate change deniers, the protection goes both ways. If passed, the bill would also prevent conservative employers from firing employees who express a belief that climate change is real.

“An Act To Protect Political Speech and Prevent Climate Change Policy Profiling” was filed to counter a racketeering lawsuit by several states' attorney generals against Exxon relating to misleading the public and investors about climate change. 

The bill summary says:

The bill specifically prohibits the attorney general from investigating, joining an investigation initiated by another state or the federal government or prosecuting any person based on that person’s protected political speech. It also prohibits the attorney general from using the attorney general’s prosecutorial power to favor or disfavor protected political speech.

The bill also prohibits the state from favoring or disfavoring any person based on the person’s climate change policy preferences with regard to grants, contracts or employment.

I wonder how the state's chambers of commerce and business lobbyists will react to adding yet another protected category to the state's anti-discrimination laws (since it only applies to the state and not private employers, they may not care). Will climate change beliefs end up as another legally-protected category? If so, what's next? Russian hacking denial? Sincerely held belief in every single thing Fox news says? Stay tuned.

Disabled Employees and Lawyers: Beware Legal Marijuana Laws

So I've been predicting that the Trump administration would crack down on legalized marijuana, and when I said that on NPR I was accused of being a fear-mongerer. Wednesday I spoke to a group of law students about legalized marijuana and how it affects employment law, and the first thing I said is that lawyers should beware representing marijuana dispensaries because a crackdown was coming from the feds.

Alarmist? Maybe not. Because yesterday the White House announced a crackdown on marijuana use. I'm rarely proven right this quickly, so thanks? Our new Attorney General has made it clear that he is very, very anti-marijuana. What does this mean for states with legalized marijuana and legalized medical marijuana?

The announcement seemed to indicate that the first crackdown would be in states with legalized marijuana for recreational use. That means you can expect the jackbooted thugs to start raiding marijuana dispensaries in those states, getting lists of customers, and then arresting those customers. I have been predicting that anyone involved in the marijuana industry will start being charged with conspiracy, and that includes lawyers.

Once they bust the recreational users, it's just a matter of time before they go after those medical marijuana cardholders. If you have a disability and are using prescribed marijuana to give you relief from your horrific symptoms, beware. Once they start busting recreational users, I suggest finding alternatives and not getting caught holding the bag (see how I did that?) with even prescribed marijuana.

As for lawyers advising the industry, you are not only risking your license but your freedom. I recommend caution all around.

Not only does the administration have an incentive to bust pot smokers to bolster the private prison industry (read: indentured servitude for big corporations), but getting busted can mean forfeiture of your property with very little right to due process, so when the administration bankrupts the country (yes, I said it, and you can bank on it the way we are headed) they will be desperate for funds to bolster the failing economy.

There are very few protections already for employees who use medical marijuana legally. Now there is even more reason to be cautious before filling that prescription.