Labor & Employment – Page 5

One Big Beautiful Bill Act Has Many Impacts for Nonprofit Health Systems

The US House of Representatives passed its One Big Beautiful Bill Act on May 22, 2025 (the Act), but nonprofit health systems may not find much about the Act that’s attractive. If passed by the US Senate and signed into law, the Act would threaten already thin operating margins at nonprofit hospitals and health systems by expanding the executive compensation excise tax, taxing parking and similar employee benefits, potentially altering funds flow arrangements for academic medical centers, and increasing demand for financial assistance through sweeping Medicaid and Health Insurance Marketplace changes.

In Depth

Nonprofit Hospitals Face Challenging Financial Environment
Nonprofit hospitals have made slow but steady progress in recovering from the financial hangover that COVID-19 induced, exacerbated by increased contract labor expenses and lingering inflation. Fitch Ratings determined that even with this improvement, the median operating margin for nonprofit hospitals was only 1.2% in 2024. Any increase in operating expenses or decrease in reimbursement that results from the Act may push many nonprofit hospitals across the thin line that separates profitability from financial distress.
The Act May Increase Nonprofit Hospital Operating Expenses
The Act would increase nonprofit hospital operating expenses in two primary ways:

Expanding the executive compensation excise tax.
Taxing parking and similar employee benefits.

As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), Congress imposed a 21% excise tax on compensation paid by charitable organizations exceeding $1 million and on certain excess parachute payments. The excise tax applies to the organization’s top five highest compensated employees during both the current tax year and any prior tax year beginning after December 31, 2016. The excise tax does not apply to compensation provided in exchange for medical services.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would significantly expand the scope of the excise tax by applying it to all employees of a charitable organization who receive compensation exceeding $1 million or an excess parachute payment. The Act would not eliminate the medical services compensation exception, but the reach and financial consequences of the expanded excise tax could be significant for nonprofit hospitals and health systems that compete with privately held or publicly traded organizations for executive or administrative talent.
The Act also threatens to increase nonprofit hospitals’ operating expenses by resurrecting a tax on parking and other qualified transportation fringe benefits made available to employees. Congress first included this so-called “parking tax” as part of the TCJA. The tax requires charitable organizations to treat the amount of qualified parking and transportation fringe benefits as unrelated business income for federal tax purposes. The complexities of taxing a business expense as income led to widespread criticism of the parking tax, and Congress retroactively repealed the tax in 2019.
The Act May Disrupt Funds Flow Arrangements, Charitable Conditions
The Act contains other provisions that may have a direct or indirect impact on nonprofit health system operations or funds flow, such as:

Increasing the tax on net investment of colleges and universities from 1.4% up to 21% (based on endowment value per student). The magnitude of this tax may result in university sponsors of academic medical systems seeking to renegotiate funds flow arrangements to recapture a portion of revenue lost to the tax.
Increasing the excise tax on private foundations up to 10% (based on assets of $5 billion). This tax may decrease the amount of funding that private foundations are willing to contribute to nonprofit health systems.

Medicaid, Health Insurance Marketplace Changes May Increase Demand for Financial Assistance
The Act contains sweeping changes to Medicaid and Health Insurance Marketplaces.. The Congressional Budget Office has not conducted a full analysis of the passed bill but estimated an increase in the number of uninsured by each committee proposal, with 7.6 million uninsured as a result of the Medicaid provisions and, at a minimum, an additional 2.1 million individuals under the Marketplace reforms by 2034. As a result, nonprofit hospitals and health systems can expect to bear the financial burden of caring for those displaced by these cuts.
What’s Not in the Act and What May Come Next
Earlier versions of the Act contained provisions that likely would have resulted in decreased revenue or increased operating expenses for nonprofit hospitals and health systems. For example, the version of the Act that passed the House Ways and Means Committee would have automatically taxed name and logo revenue as unrelated business income.
The Act now moves to the Senate, where notable Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) have already called for significant changes to the Act. The goal remains to finish and pass the reconciliation package by July 4, 2025.

GT’s The Performance Review Episode 31: “Parental Leave.” [Podcast]

You are invited to listen to Episode 31 of GT’s The Performance Review – California Labor & Employment Podcast, “Parental Leave.”
GT Shareholders Brian Kelly and Michael Wertheim consider the legal requirements and regulations surrounding parental leave in California. (Plus, what can the movie Prometheus from the Alien franchise teach us about child bonding and pregnancy disability leave? A lot, it turns out.)
GT’s The Performance Review – California Labor & Employment Podcast is a discussion on the latest trends and developments in California Labor & Employment law.

10 Key Factors That Influence the Value of Your Personal Injury Claim

Suffering an injury because of someone else’s negligence can be a life-altering experience. Beyond the physical pain and emotional stress, many people become overwhelmed with medical bills, time away from work, and uncertainty about the future. When pursuing a personal injury claim, it is important to understand the factors that can affect how much compensation you may receive. While every case is unique, certain key elements consistently play a significant role in determining the value of a claim.
1. Severity of Your Injuries
More serious injuries typically lead to higher settlements. A broken bone, spinal injury, or traumatic brain injury usually results in more compensation than a minor sprain or bruise.
2. Medical Expenses
This includes both past and future medical costs related to the injury. Doctor visits, hospital stays, surgeries, physical therapy, and even medical equipment all factor into your claim.
3. Lost Wages and Income
If your injury caused you to miss work or reduced your ability to earn a living, you can be compensated for the income lost and may continue to lose in the future.
4. Pain and Suffering
This refers to the physical pain and emotional distress caused by the injury. While more difficult to calculate, pain and suffering is a significant part of many claims.
5. Permanent Disability or Disfigurement
If the injury has caused long-term or permanent damage, such as scarring, loss of mobility, or loss of a limb, the claim’s value is likely to increase.
6. Liability and Fault
If the other party was clearly at fault, your claim is stronger. However, if the fault is disputed or you were partially responsible, it can reduce your compensation.
7. Available Insurance Coverage
Even if your claim is strong, the amount you can recover may be limited by the insurance policies involved, whether it is the at-fault party’s coverage or your own.
8. Documentation and Evidence
Having strong documentation, including photos, witness statements, police reports, and medical records, can make a big difference in supporting your claim and boosting its value.
9. Timeliness of Medical Treatment
Delays in seeking treatment or gaps in medical care may weaken your case, making it seem as if your injuries were not serious or were not caused by the accident.
10. Quality of Legal Representation
A qualified personal injury attorney can help build a strong case, negotiate with insurance companies, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Without legal guidance, you risk settling for far less than your claim is worth.
Conclusion
Understanding these factors can help set realistic expectations for your personal injury claim. While every case is unique, the best way to get an accurate assessment is to speak with an experienced attorney.

Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2025: The Nuts and Bolts of Drug and Alcohol Testing [Podcast]

In this installment of our Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2025 podcast series, shareholders Christina Mallatt (Indianapolis), who co-chairs the firm’s Drug Testing Practice Group, and Brent Kettelkamp (Minneapolis) discuss the history of drug testing and the current dynamics of this complex and rapidly evolving field. Brent and Christina focus on the implications of legal marijuana use and the growing prevalence of opioid use, whether legal or otherwise. The speakers also explore how employers can establish and enforce effective and legally compliant drug and alcohol testing policies and protocols that are specifically tailored to meet their workplace safety requirements and align with their company culture.

Live from Workplace Horizons 2025: The New Reality of Immigration Enforcement: Challenges and Solutions for Employers [Podcast]

Welcome to a special edition of We get work®, recorded live from Workplace Horizons 2025 in New York City, Jackson Lewis’s annual Labor and Employment Law Conference. Over 500 representatives from 260 companies gathered together to share valuable insights and best practices on workplace law issues impacting their business today. Here’s your personal invitation to get the insights from the conference, delivered directly to you.

PR Supreme Court’s Rejection of Agency Deference Gives Employers New Tools

Takeaways

Courts no longer have to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because the law is ambiguous.
The ruling aligns Puerto Rico with U.S. Supreme Court decisions, marking a shift from blind deference to administrative “expertise.”
As a result, employers can challenge agency findings on worker classification, just cause terminations, wage disputes, and statutory benefits more effectively.

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision limiting the deference that Puerto Rico courts owe to administrative agencies’ legal conclusions. DACO v. Consejo de Titulares del Condominio Los Corales, 2025 TSPR 56 (May 21, 2025).
The ruling recalibrates the balance of power between courts and agencies under the Puerto Rico Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (LPAU) and aligns local doctrine with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the Chevron deference doctrine in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
DACO’s Determination
The Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) determined that a condominium’s administrative agent should be classified as an independent contractor subject to procurement safeguards under Article 58 of Puerto Rico’s Condominium Act. This interpretation contradicted the Supreme Court decision in Colón Ortiz v. Asociación Cond. B.T. I, 185 D.P.R. 946 (2012), that held that such agents are legal mandataries (mandatarios), not contractors. DACO imposed procurement conditions on the agent’s selection, and the Condominium’s Board of Directors challenged the agency’s decision.
Court’s Decision
Rejecting DACO’s erroneous legal interpretation, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the deference previously afforded to agencies’ legal conclusions no longer applies under LPAU.
Controlling Section 4.5 of the LPAU, it noted, states plainly that “legal conclusions shall be reviewable in all respects by the court” and eliminated the presumption of correctness once granted to agencies’ legal reasoning.
Citing Loper Bright, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court emphasized that courts are not required to give deference to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because the statute is ambiguous. Puerto Rico courts must engage in independent judicial review of all legal interpretations made by administrative bodies.
Implications for Employers
Prior to this decision, employers often faced agency rulings (for instance, from the Office of Mediation and Adjudication of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources) that were difficult to challenge because courts afforded broad deference to administrative conclusions of law.
After this ruling, courts may freely reexamine legal determinations made by agencies, such as:

Whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor;
Whether a termination constitutes “just cause”; and
Whether certain benefits or wages are owed under applicable statutes.

The Supreme Court’s decision represents a doctrinal shift in administrative law that empowers employers to challenge adverse agency decisions more effectively in court.

US Employers Must Submit 2024 EEO-1 Data to the EEOC by June 24, 2025

Data collection for 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing opened on May 20, 2025. Employers have until Tuesday, June 24, 2025 to submit their data to the agency.
Each year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) collects workforce data from private employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees that are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through mandatory Form EEO-1 filings. This form reports what is referred to as “Component 1” data, consisting of information about the sex and race or ethnicity of the employer’s workforce by job category.
What is different this year?
This year, the EEOC implemented several changes to the reporting process, namely:

Shortening the collection period during which filers may submit their 2024 reports in an effort to cut costs to the American public, meaning eligible filers should begin the filing process immediately. While the data collection period has been extended in prior years, the EEOC’s recent announcement emphasizes that the 2024 collection period “will not extend beyond the Tuesday June 24, 2025” deadline.
Unlike prior years, employers will not receive any notifications concerning EEO-1 reporting via postal mail, and, beginning this data collection period, all communications will be electronic.
The 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection only provides binary options (i.e., male or female) for reporting employee counts by sex.

How can employers comply?
Employers must file their EEO-1 reports through the web-based filing system, referred to as the EEO-1 Component 1 website, which is accessible at www.eeocdata.org/eeo1. Resource materials are also available on the EEO-1 Component 1 website, including the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Instruction Booklet and 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Data File Upload Specifications.
Filing must be completed by 11:00 pm Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, and eligible filers who fail to do so by that deadline will be out of compliance with their mandatory 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing obligations. Filers who have questions about or require assistance complying with their 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing obligations should contact their SPB attorney as soon as possible.

Department of Labor Proposed Budget Seeks To Completely Dismantle OFCCP

According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiscal year 2026 proposed budget, the Department is set to fully eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) next fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2025. The budget proposal aligns with the current administration’s broader efforts to shut down the OFCCP and its authority to audit and investigate federal contractors for potential race and sex discrimination. Earlier this year, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which rescinded Executive Order 11246. Revoking this President Johnson-era order stripped most of the OFCCP’s authority, except where otherwise outlined in statute.
The budget proposal, released on May 30, 2025, states Executive Order 14173
permanently removes the primary basis for OFCCP’s enforcement authority and program work.

The budget proposes transferring OFCCP’s responsibilities under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Additionally, the DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service would take over enforcement duties under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Acts (VEVRAA).
Congress has yet to approve the DOL’s proposed budget, and statutory amendments may be necessary to transfer authority from the OFCCP to other executive agencies.
We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as we learn of them.

Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on . . . Successful Summer Internship Programs

With Memorial Day in the rearview mirror and the month of June upon us, many companies and organizations throughout the country are preparing to kick off the summer by welcoming an incoming cohort of summer interns.
Internship programs are a win-win for both employers and students: they enable employers to identify future talent and provide students valuable work experience and training. That said, employers choosing to offer such programs should take care to structure them properly to avoid any risk of liability under applicable federal and state wage and hour laws. Keep reading to learn the key wage-hour compliance issues and best practices for hosting interns this summer.
Do I have to pay my interns?
Most likely, yes—at least unless the internship is one where the intern mainly shadows and observes but performs little to no productive work. At least under U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) guidance, internships generally are presumed to constitute an employment relationship under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—and, therefore, an employer must pay wages to its interns—unless the internship satisfies the “primary beneficiary test.”
The seven-factor primary beneficiary test, adopted by the WHD in a 2018 Field Assistance Bulletin, No. 2018-12, examines the economic reality of the intern-employer relationship to determine which party is the “primary beneficiary” of that relationship. In other words, who benefits most from the internship? To determine the primary beneficiary, consider the extent to which:

The internship provides training similar to that which a student would receive in an educational environment, such as clinics and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
The internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
The internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar (such as breaks between semesters).
The internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the program provides the intern with beneficial learning.
The intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
The intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee (and vice versa).
The intern and the employer understand that participation in the internship does not entitle the intern to a paid job at the conclusion of the program.

According to the WHD, this test is flexible, and no single factor will tip the scales in one direction or the other.
In addition, certain states may have separate laws or regulations governing internships, so employers should check for state and local requirements that may apply. In New York, for example, the New York State Department of Labor (“NY DOL”) has enumerated eleven criteria—six from the WHD and five of its own—to evaluate whether an intern is exempt from requirements of the State Minimum Wage Act and Wage Orders and need not be paid. According to the NY DOL’s guidance, an employment relationship will not exist between a New York employer and its interns only if the internship meets all eleven of the following criteria:

The training is similar to training provided in an educational program, even though it includes actual operation of the employer’s facilities.
The training is for the intern’s benefit.
The intern does not displace regular employees and works under close supervision.
The activities of trainees or students do not provide any immediate advantage to the employer (and such activities may, on occasion, impede the employer’s operations).
The trainees or students are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship and are free to take jobs elsewhere in the same field.
The employer notifies trainees or students, in writing and before the internship begins, that they are not considered employees for minimum wage purposes and will not receive any wages.
The interns must perform any clinical training under the supervision and direction of knowledgeable and experienced individuals in that industry.
The trainees or students do not receive any employee benefits (g., health insurance, pension or retirement credit, and the like).
The training is not designed specifically for a job with the employer that offers the internship program; rather, the training offers general, transferrable skills that qualify trainees or students to work in any similar business.
The screening process for the internship program is different from the employer’s screening process for employment, and uses only criteria relevant for admission to an independent educational program.
Advertisements, postings, or solicitations for the internship clearly discuss training, rather than employment.

How much should I pay interns?
Most interns will be properly classified as “non-exempt,” which means that the employer must comply with the FLSA and any applicable more restrictive state and local laws in determining what wages to pay them. Generally, interns must receive at least the minimum wage (the highest of federal, state, or local), as well as overtime pay, when applicable. Interns who are non-exempt will also be subject to applicable meal and rest break rules.
What are the hallmarks of a compliant unpaid internship?
Companies and organizations that wish to engage unpaid interns can take steps to mitigate the risk of potential claims of misclassification. Consider the following suggestions and tips for a successful unpaid internship program:

Identify and review the applicable legal framework(s) in the jurisdiction in which the intern will participate in the program.
Structure the internship to build on classroom or academic experience, rather than to bolster the employer’s operations.
Liaise with an educational institution to oversee the program and award educational credit.
Facilitate job shadowing and hands-on training to learn certain job functions under close and constant supervision of employees, but ensure interns perform minimal or no substantive work.
Limit the internship to a fixed and finite period keyed to semesters and breaks in the academic calendar.
Avoid using the internship as a trial period for individuals seeking employment. The internship should have no connection to any offer or promise of employment.
Keep recruiting and screening processes for employees and interns completely separate. Searches for candidates should be independent from one another.
Clearly communicate to interns in advance, in writing, that the internship is unpaid.
Avoid filling staffing gaps. Do not use interns to meet increased seasonal demands or to substitute for regular employees.
Provide mentorship and training to interns by developing their work skills and knowledge in a way that is transferable to any employer in the field.

Last, but not least: consult with your trusted wage-hour counsel to maximize the rewards of a successful internship program while minimizing risk.

Circuit Split Deepens on “Harm” as a Failure to Accommodate Element

The split among federal circuit courts of appeal as to whether a disabled worker must show harm in bringing a failure to accommodate claim continues. Recently, the Fifth Circuit joined the majority of circuits in finding that harm is not an element of a failure to accommodate claim.
On May 16, 2025, the Fifth Circuit reversed, in part, a lower court decision that required harm as an element of a failure to accommodate claim.
Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, Case No. 24-20269, Plaintiff Strife, an Army veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and was injured during service, became a teacher after her discharge from the Army. Subsequently, Strife was promoted to work in human resources for the school district. Strife had a service dog to assist with both her physical and psychological disabilities, including balance, fall protection, and PTSD mitigation.
Strife requested the accommodation of allowing her service dog to accompany her at work — an accommodation that was not approved for six months, and only approved after she filed a lawsuit, and an injunction hearing was pending. The Fifth Circuit decision focused on her failure to accommodate claim — specifically, whether this six-month delay was a failure to accommodate.
The Fifth Circuit found the district court improperly dismissed this claim because the dismissal relied in part on Plaintiff’s failure to allege an injury during the accommodation request period. While the district court found this lack of harm rendered the pleading insufficient, the Fifth Circuit disagreed and reversed.
The Fifth Circuit decision that a failure to accommodate claim does not require the element of harm aligns with existing decisions out of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. The Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held otherwise.
At this time, employers should:

be aware of the differing standards between circuits and plan litigation strategy accordingly;
continue to heed the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis that workers must, for a Title VII claim, only show “some harm” that left them “worse off” as to their employment; and
adhere to the obligation to engage in the interactive process when managing accommodation requests.

District Court Interprets Multiemployer Plan Fee-Shifting Provision to Encompass Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred in Related Litigation

A multiemployer plan that prevails in an action to collect delinquent contributions or withdrawal liability is statutorily entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “of the action.” In International Painters & Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund v. Florida Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc., No. 23-cv-00045, 2025 WL 712965 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2025), the court held that the statute permits a plan to recover not just the fees and costs incurred in the collection action, but also those incurred to defend a related action.
Florida Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc. was a contributing employer to the International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund. Following Florida Glass’s complete withdrawal from the Fund, the Fund filed suit to collect over $1.5 million in withdrawal liability from Florida Glass and its controlled group members. While that action was pending, the controlled group members sued the Fund and its attorneys in Florida state court, alleging that the Fund’s collection action constituted defamation and abuse of process under Florida law. After the Florida action was dismissed with prejudice, the court in the collection action granted the Fund’s motion for summary judgment and awarded it withdrawal liability, interest, and liquidated damages. The court also granted the Fund’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, which included the amounts incurred in both the collection and Florida actions. The court held that the phrase “of the action” in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D) meant all fees and costs that were or should have been incurred in the collection action. The court reasoned that defendants should have raised their claims as counterclaims in the collection action rather than commencing a parallel action. The court indicated that its ruling was based in part on the need to effectuate the statutory goal of preserving fund assets, as defendants’ actions unnecessarily multiplied the Fund’s litigation expenses by requiring it to litigate two separate actions.
Proskauer’s Perspective
The decision is notable because it interprets ERISA’s mandatory fee-shifting provision for collection actions to encompass fees incurred in parallel actions where fees would not otherwise be recoverable or where the award is not mandatory. Plans and employers should consider whether the decision lays the groundwork for a mandatory award of fees to a plan that, in addition to successfully pursuing an employer for delinquent contributions or withdrawal liability, prevails in arbitration by the employer to challenge the amount of the liability.

Cryptocurrency in 401(k): A Balanced Approach Returns

Takeaway

The 2025 CAR does not alter ERISA’s substantive fiduciary standards and considerations but eases the DOL’s previously hostile enforcement stance toward cryptocurrency and similar digital assets in 401(k) plans, restoring a “neutral” DOL enforcement approach. 401(k) plan fiduciaries must still consider all relevant ERISA factors and apply the necessary care, skill, prudence, and diligence required by ERISA in managing their 401(k) plan fund lineup. They can now feel more assured that a decision to include cryptocurrency in their 401(k) plan will not be subjected to increased scrutiny by the DOL; however, they must remain vigilant regarding the risk of potential participant claims and class actions.