Archive for May, 2014

Bill Would Make Employers Legally Responsible for Temp Agency Workers

If you use temporary workers in your operation, you need to be aware of a measure making its way through the legislature that would shift a disproportionate amount of liability onto your business.
The measure, AB 1897, authored by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, a West Covina Democrat, has a number of provisions that would have a detrimental effect on employers that use temporary labor.
The measure would force employers to pay wages, taxes and workers’ compensation on workers if a contracting agency fails to, even if the employer has already paid the temp agency or labor contractor for the workers.
The measure would also change enforcement by putting the onus on employers to provide documentation on temp workers to various labor-related state agencies, instead of the temp firms that are the employer of record.
The bill would allow inspectors from the labor commissioner, Cal/OSHA and the Employment Development Department to request proof of compliance from either the temp firm or the employer that is using the temporary workers that wages are being paid correctly, that taxes and withholdings are being remitted and that there is a valid workers’ comp policy covering the temp workers.
The California Chamber of Commerce says this unfairly shifts the responsibility to employers if the temporary agency fails to pay the workers.
Also, it says the wording of the bill would require employers to produce to regulators personnel records that they do not control or have in their possession. And employers are not legally able to require the temp agency to hand over those documents.
Additionally, the chamber says that requiring an employer to produce the personnel records of the contractor jeopardizes the confidentiality of the temporary workers, opening them up to the specter of litigation between employers and the temp firms they use.
Under the measure, an employer would share all legal responsibility and liability – including employer contributions, worker contributions, personal income tax and workers’ compensation – with an individual or company that supplies workers. For example, if a temp agency doesn’t pay its workers, the responsibility would fall on the temporary employer.
Hernandez says that he introduced the bill to target temp agencies and labor contractors that try to skirt the law and businesses that use them to avoid liability for workers they don’t want on their payrolls.
There have been documented cases of employees not getting paid, and not being covered after being injured at a job site because the temp agency or labor contractor failed to secure workers’ comp coverage. The employees are left in the lurch, as employers don’t feel they should be responsible for the failings of the temp agency they already paid.
But the problem is that the bill could cast a pall over the labor contracting industry and sweep up legitimate contracting arrangements and temp agencies that play by the rules.
The California Grocers Association contended in written testimony to the Assembly Labor Committee that the overly broad definitions in the bill “create tension of the right of control’’, a key test in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
“This bill essentially eliminates independent contractors because it says that both the provider of the services as well as the ultimate employer is legally responsible,” it said.

The ACA $36,500 a Year Penalty

You think those Affordable Care Act penalties of $2,000 to $3,000 per employee for not providing them with health coverage are high? Well, the Internal Revenue Service has quietly posted an item on its website’s Q&A section that may shock you.

The highest fine available in the IRS’s arsenal is $36,500 per employee!

This would apply to employers that maintain health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) that are not tied to a health insurance plan. These “non-integrated” HRAs should generally have been eliminated by Jan. 1, 2014, or amended to be integrated with group health coverage.

The IRS posted this news right before open enrollment for the 2014 policy year, forcing many employers to scramble to ensure they were in compliance. The law specifically states that employers that provide these non-integrated plans would be subject to a $100 per day excise tax per employee. If they keep that policy for a full year, that would be $36,500.

Scared yet? If you have an HRA and want to know if it is in compliance, read on.

An HRA is an IRS-sanctioned employer-funded, tax-advantaged employer health benefit plan that reimburses employees for out-of-pocket medical expenses and individual health insurance premiums.

Most HRAs reimburse all or a subset of eligible medical expenses as described under IRS Code Section 213(d), and can continue if those eligible for the HRA are also eligible for and enrolled in an employer-sponsored ACA-compliant group medical coverage. This is called an integrated HRA.

Employer-sponsored ACA-compliant group medical coverage may be provided by an employer that offers the integrated HRA, or employees may certify they have coverage under a spouse’s ACA-compliant group medical plan.

There are also some new rules concerning the integrated HRAs. First, participants must be able to permanently opt out of and waive future reimbursements from the HRA annually, and the plan should be designed so that remaining HRA amounts are forfeited upon termination of employment. This enables employees to obtain individual coverage on exchanges and be eligible for premium tax credits.

HRAs that reimburse just vision or dental expenses are also still legal. Under current regulations, limited-scope dental or vision benefits will be excepted from the ACA’s market reform provisions “if they are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, or are otherwise not an integral part of a group health plan…”

The regulation further provides that benefits are not an integral part of a group health plan unless (i) participants have the right to elect not to receive coverage for the benefits, and (ii) if a participant elects to receive coverage for the benefits, the participant must pay an additional premium or contribution for that coverage.

As a result, because an HRA is not an insurance arrangement, in order for dental or vision benefits provided through an HRA to be excepted from ACA provisions, employees that elect to have dental or vision coverage provided by the HRA must be charged a premium or contribution.

This will cause some difficulties for employers. That’s because an HRA must be “paid for solely by the employer and not provided pursuant to salary reduction election or otherwise under a 125 cafeteria plan.”

 

IRS generosity

Fortunately, the IRS is being generous when it comes to the $100 a day excise tax.

IRS code provides that no excise tax will be imposed if the IRS is satisfied the person otherwise liable for the tax did not know about the failure and, exercising reasonable due diligence, would not have known about the failure.

Also, it won’t impose the tax if the failure:

  • Was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect;
  • Is corrected within 30 days of the date a person knew of a failure, or exercising due diligence would have known of a failure; and
  • Is corrected before notice of examination.

Business Bills That Would Affect Your Company

As the California legislative session is in full swing, the California Chamber of Commerce has identified a number of bills that it considers “job killers.”

While the list is extensive – some 27 measures in all – a handful affect large swaths of businesses. The bills run the gamut from one that would require employers to provide paid sick leave to increasing penalties for delayed workers’ comp indemnity payments.

With Democrats controlling both houses of the legislature and a Democrat in the governor’s office, the likelihood of any of these measures being signed into law are always greater. History has shown this to be true.

Since the chamber first started putting out its annual list of job killers in 1997, 44 such measures have been signed into law. Democrat Gov. Gray Davis signed 32 of those bills, but Republican governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed every one of the bills that landed on their desks.
Since Democrat Jerry Brown took over the governor’s office, he has vetoed 50 job killer bills and signed 12 of them.

The following list is truncated to focus on the measures that have the broadest effects.

  • AB 1522 Paid Sick Leave – Increases employer mandates by requiring all employers, large and small, to provide all employees in California with paid sick leave, and threatens employers with statutory penalties as well as litigation for alleged violations.
  • SB 935 Minimum Wage  – The chamber asserts that this unfairly increases employer costs by raising the minimum wage to $13 by 2017, and then increasing it thereafter in line with the Consumer Price Index.
  • AB 1897 Contractor Liability  – This measure would require an employer to share all legal responsibility and liability – including employer contributions, worker contributions, personal income tax and workers’ compensation – with an individual or company that supplies workers.
    If, for example, a temp agency failed to pay its workers, the responsibility would fall on the temporary employer. The same goes if the labor contractor failed to pay for workers’ comp coverage, and/or failure to remit employee contributions.
  • AB 2416 Unproven Wage Liens   – The bill would allow employees to file liens on an employer’s real or personal property, or property where work was performed, based upon alleged wage claims.

The chamber asserts that the employee would only have to believe they were owed back wages in order to enforce the lien. This would subject employers to “constant extortion in order to avoid dealing with a lien on their property,” wrote CalChamber representatives in an opposition letter.

SB 404 Expansion of Discrimination Laws – Expands the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include a protected classification for any person who is perceived to be, or is associated with an individual who provides medical or supervisory care to a listed family member.

There was one other bill that had been on the list, but it never made it out of committee after employers complained it would severely increase their costs.
That bill, AB 2604, would have dramatically increased penalties and costs for delayed workers’ comp benefit payments. The penalties would have been more than the actual amount of the delayed payment.

 

Court Rules Fired Worker Only Needs to Prove Workers’ Comp Claim Was ‘Contributing Factor’ to Termination

We recently had an article in the newsletter about the dangers of terminating someone who has filed a workers’ comp claim. The key is to make sure that the reason for the firing has absolutely nothing to do with the termination, and that you have all of your documentation in order.

A recent case decided by the Missouri Supreme Court reflects the dangers of firing a workers’ comp claimant. In this case, the court ruled that an injured worker only needed to prove that his claim was a “contributing factor” and not an “exclusive cause” of his discharge.

The background of the case, John Templemire vs. W&M Welding Inc., is as follows:

Templemire was working for the employer when he was injured in January 2006 after a large metal beam fell from a forklift and crushed his left foot.

He filed a workers’ comp claim and received benefits for his injury. He was able to return to work after his doctor placed various work restrictions on him over the course of several months, such as: climbing stairs, pushing and pulling, or standing longer than one hour without a 15-minute break.

The company put him on light duty. One day in November 2006 he was told to wash a railing, but he had to wait for another worker to finish preparing the railing for the cleaning, according to court documents. So he took a 15-minute break to rest his foot, which had become infected.

The owner of W&M Welding confronted him, cursed at him for not washing the railing and fired him on the spot, according to court documents.

After the employee called his claims adjuster to tell her he’d been fired, the adjuster called the owner and informed him that Templemire was required to take breaks to rest his foot as part of the restricted duty his doctor had put him on.

W&M Welding’s owner told the adjuster that he felt that Templemire was “milking” his injury and that Templemire “can sue him for whatever reason,” according to court records. Templemire sued, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ comp claim.

Unfortunately for the owner of the company, Templemire’s lawyers had evidence showing that he’d fired another employee who had filed a workers’ comp claim and that he had picked on employees who were injured and had not received workers’ comp benefits.
Company documents also indicated that Templemire had been a good employee with no black marks on his record prior to being fired.

At trial, a jury had found in the company’s favor, saying the workers’ comp claim was not the exclusive factor the company owner had considered when firing Templemire. But the state supreme court opined that jurors should have weighed whether his comp claim was a “contributing factor,” rather than the “exclusive cause” of his firing.
The high court found that Templemire had presented “substantial evidence” that W&M Welding discriminated against him because of his workers’ comp claim, and ordered a new trial for Templemire that would use the “contributing factor” standard.
Zero tolerance
“While this Court recognizes a fundamental difference between the purposes of the (Missouri Human Rights Act) and the workers’ compensation laws as a whole, there can be no tolerance for employment discrimination in the workplace, be it based upon protected classes such as gender, race or age, or an employee blowing the whistle on an employer’s illegal practices in violation of public policy, or for exercising workers compensation rights,” the court wrote in its opinion.

“Discrimination against an employee for exercising his or her rights under the workers compensation law is just as illegal, insidious and reprehensible as discrimination under the (Missouri Human Rights Act) or for retaliatory discharge under the public policy exception of the at-will employment doctrine.”

While this case was in Missouri, the interpretation would likely hold in other jurisdictions as well. Firing a workers’ comp claimant is tricky and it should only be done as a result of other workplace issues, independent of the claim.

The results of this case should serve as a warning to any employer who has an issue with an employee that has filed a workers’ comp claim in the past.

ACA Small Group Deductible Limits Repealed

President Obama has signed legislation that repeals a provision of the Affordable Care Act that limited deductibles in small group health insurance plans to $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for family coverage.

The repeal was part of a larger measure – the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 – that delays for a year a scheduled 24% reduction in payment for doctors who treat Medicare patients.

The removal of the deductible cap applies to plans for employers of 50 or fewer full-time workers, up until 2016, when the definition of small group changes to 100 or fewer full-time employees.

The deductible limit was originally intended to take effect for plans that take effect this year. The repeal takes effect immediately and retroactively to March 10, 2010,
Implementing ACA regulations had barred insurance companies from taking into account an employer’s health flexible spending accounts or health retirement account contributions for the purposes of determining compliance with deductible limits.

Unfortunately, the regulation had the unintended effect of basically forcing some small employers to purchase plans with lower deductibles if they were to continue offering coverage. And the lower-deductible plans included significantly higher premiums in many cases.

But not all small group plans were affected. Insurance companies in some states were able to avoid the deductible limit rules thanks to exceptions created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as well as in Health and Human Services regulations.
These changes allowed plans to exceed the $2,000 and $4,000 deductible limits if it helped the plan achieve the lowest allowable actuarial value of 60% (meaning that 60% of health services are covered by the insurer).

At this point, we will have to wait and see if insurers in the small group market start offering policies that exceed the now-repealed limits. If they do, it will give small employers more choice.

As your broker, we will let you know during your next renewal if small group plans with higher deductibles come back on the market as a result of this law change.

 

 

Voluntary Benefits Can Reduce Workers’ Comp Claims

A new survey has found that more than 40% of companies providing access to voluntary accident and disability insurance also reported declines in workers’ comp claims.

The Aflac Workers’ Compensation Report, an online survey of 600 employers, found that 55% of large companies that provide access to accident insurance experienced declines in workers’ compensation claims, while 34% of small- and medium-sized companies each reported declines.

The findings indicate that the safety net of these voluntary benefits makes it less likely that an employee will file a bogus workers’ comp claim in order to keep some form of income flowing if they are unable to work due to a temporary disability.

“For years, insurance agents and brokers have heard anecdotal rumors linking voluntary accident and disability insurance to reduced workers’ compensation claims, and we learned the anecdotes are true based on our recent study results,” said Tye Elliott, and Aflac vice president, said in a prepared statement. “These findings confirm the correlation between accident and disability insurance and reduced workers’ compensation claims. Employers can now weigh the potential positive financial effects of offering accident and disability insurance against the costs of workers’ compensation claims.”

In addition to asking employers if they could confirm declines in claims, the survey also inquired about the significance of those declines.

Here are some responses of companies that provide access to voluntary accident insurance:

  • 14% of all employers reported declines of 50% or more, while 17% reported declines of 25 to 49%.
  • 12% of large-sized businesses reported reductions of 50% or more, while 29% reported declines of 25 to 49%.
  • 13% of medium-sized businesses reported reductions of 50% or more, while 14% reported declines of 25 to 49%.
  • 15% of small-sized businesses reported reductions of 50% or more, while 9% reported declines of 25 to 49%.

 

The findings were similar for companies that provide access to voluntary disability insurance – nearly half (47%) of large employers reported overall decreases in workers’ compensation claims, Aflac said. In addition, 43% of small companies and 33% of medium companies reported declines.

The effects on workers’ comp claims frequency by offering voluntary disability insurance coverage was most pronounced among small and mid-sized firms:

  • 15% of all employers reported declines of 50% or more, and 15% reported declines of 25 to 49%.
  • 11% of large employers reported declines of 50% or more, while 20% reported declines of 25 to 49%.
  • 18% of medium employers reported declines of 50% or more, while 7% reported declines of 25 to 49%.
  • 18% of small employers reported declines of 50% or more, while 17% reported declines of 25 to 49%.

 

Summer’s Almost Here: Protect Your Outdoor Workers

As summer approaches, employers with outside workers need to make sure that they are in compliance with Cal/OSHA’s heat illness prevention standard to protect their employees – and also to avoid being cited.

 

Over the years, the heat illness standard has evolved as more is learned about how heat illness works. The following covers the major elements of the standard.

 

Access to water

•             Locate the water containers as close as practicable given the working conditions and layout of the worksite.

•             Keep it readily accessible, move it with the workers!

•             Encourage the frequent drinking of water.

•             Remind workers not to wait until they are thirsty.

 

Shade up at 85 degrees

•             When temperatures reach 85, you must have and maintain one or more areas of shade at all times, when employees are present.

•             Locate the shade as close as practical to the area where employees are working.

•             Provide enough shade to accommodate at least 25% of the employees on the shift at any one time. However, retain the ability to permit access to all workers that request it at all times.

 

High-heat procedures

When the temperature equals or exceeds 95 degrees:

•             Ensure effective communication.

•             Observe employees for alertness and signs and symptoms of heat illness.

•             Give more frequent reminders to drink plenty of water.

•             Closely supervise new employees, for the first 14 days.

 

Training

Ensure all employees and supervisors are trained before beginning work that should reasonably be anticipated to result in a heat illness. Make sure all employees and supervisors are trained in:

•             The environmental and personal risk factors for heat illness, as well as the added burden of heat load on the body

•             Your company’s heat illness prevention procedures

•             The importance of frequent consumption of small quantities of water

•             Types of heat illness, common signs and symptoms

•             The importance of acclimatization

•             Reporting signs or symptoms of heat illness to a supervisor

•             Procedures for responding to possible heat illness

•             Procedures to follow when contacting emergency medical services, providing first aid, and if necessary transporting employees.

 

Written procedures

•             Integrate your procedures into the Injury and Illness Prevention Plan.

•             Maintain the procedures on site or close to the site, so that they can be made available to employees and Cal/OSHA inspectors.

•             You can find sample procedures here:

 www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/ESPHIP

Hazard Communication Best Practices

OSHA’s new Hazard Communication Standard took effect Dec. 1, 2013, but before that, the workplace safety agency had mandated that all employers were required to train their employees about any hazardous chemicals in the workplace.

But that training alone won’t be enough to avoid being cited by OSHA. The Hazard Communication Standard is one of the most-often cited of OSHA’s safety standards. It’s also of extreme importance to the health of your workers, as it makes them aware of potentially hazardous chemicals they may be exposed to in the course of their work.

Already many employers struggle to create a hazard communications program that complies with OSHA’s rules. And there is more confusion now that the Hazard Communication Standard has been harmonized with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classifying and labeling chemicals.

Brady Corp., a Milwaukee-based manufacturer and marketer of complete identification solutions, has published a booklet on complying with the new Hazard Communication Standard and it recommends the following:

 

Develop a written Hazard Communication plan – Your plan should include a summary of the hazardous chemicals you have on your premises, as well as your firm’s policy for dealing with hazardous chemicals.

The plan should include the scope of your policy, how you communicate chemical hazards, a review of the new hazcom standards, your employee training, and a regular inspection schedule. Your policy needs to be implemented and maintained in all of your worksites.

According to OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.1200(e) regulation, a written hazard communication program must include (at minimum):

  • Purpose and scope of the program
  • A list of known hazardous chemicals in the workplace to be drawn up in the format of safety data sheets (SDSs)
  • Labels that coincide with correct and current information in the SDSs
  • Training and information for employees to convey any changes to the Hazard Communication Standard, as well as the new GHS labels and SDSs
  • Methods for updating, evaluating and conveying information about chemical hazards
  • Work processes for non-routine tasks surrounding hazardous chemicals, and the associated risks involved in those tasks
  • Appropriate storage and transportation of hazardous chemicals and materials
  • Where and how employees must travel between workplaces and work shift changes when dealing with hazardous chemicals and materials

 

Inventory all hazardous chemicals – Make an inventory list of the hazardous chemicals found in your worksites and match them with properly formatted SDSs.

Your chemical inventory management system should also include:

  • Location tracking
  • Container tracking and reconciliation reporting
  • Unit of measure conversions and calculations
  • Material approval routings
  • Methods of managing restricted and banned chemicals
  • Notifications of exceeded thresholds

 

Maintain a complete library of SDSs – Employees should have easy access to your SDSs at all times.

Your program should outline how employees can access individual SDSs, be they paper or in electronic format.

Clearly post which employees are responsible for obtaining and maintaining the SDS library.

After you receive SDSs from chemical manufacturers, make sure the labels comply with all of the elements. The following elements are included in a typical hazardous chemical SDS:

1. Identification of the substance or mixture, and of the supplier

2. Hazards identification

3. Composition/information on ingredients

4. First-aid measures

5. Firefighting measures

6. Accidental release measures

7. Handling and storage

8. Exposure controls/personal protection

9. Physical and chemical properties

10. Stability and reactivity

11. Toxicological information

12. Ecological information

13. Disposal considerations

14. Transport information

15. Regulatory information

16. Other information, including information on preparation and revision of the SDS

 

Label all storage containers, pipes and tanks – Use highly visible permanent labels to clearly communicate chemical hazards to your employees.

All containers and tanks that store chemicals in your organization’s facility must be properly labeled in accordance with the Hazardous Communications Standard.

If you remove chemicals from their primary containers and place them into secondary containers for use in the workplace, then you must properly label the secondary containers too.

Also, pipes that carry hazardous chemicals should ideally have pipe markers at fixed distances.

 

Train your employees in your HazCom policy  – You must fully train affected employees in all elements of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.

Train them in reading and interpreting hazardous chemical labels and SDSs. They should also know where you store the SDSs, and how to access them.

Regularly communicate and provide reminders (posters, updates, memos) to employees to keep them actively aware of the HazCom program.

California Worst State for Employment Practices Lawsuits, New Research Finds

In April, a 66-year-old man was awarded $26 million by a jury that found he had been discriminated against and harassed based upon his age by his supervising managers at Staples.

The Los Angeles Superior Court jury found in favor of Bobby Nickel and awarded him $3.2 million in compensatory damages and nearly $23 million in punitive damages. While this likely qualifies as one of the biggest awards of its kind in California, the case illustrates the dangers to employers from employee lawsuits in the Golden State and the associated liability.

And a recent study has found that California employers are especially susceptible to lawsuits by employees.

A study of employment practices litigation data by Hiscox, an international specialist insurer, found California, Illinois, Alabama and Mississippi and the District of Columbia to be the top five riskiest areas of America for employee lawsuits. Businesses in these states and jurisdictions face a substantially higher risk of being sued by their employees than the national average.

According to the study, on average, U.S. businesses with at least 10 employees have a 12.5% chance of having an employment liability charge filed against them.

However, businesses in several states face a much higher level of exposure to litigation. California has the most frequent incidences of employment practices lawsuits in the country, with a 42% higher chance of being sued by an employee for establishments with at least 10 employees over the national average.

In other words, if you operate a business in California, you need to be especially mindful of how you hire, discipline, fire and treat employees. Employment practices lawsuits run the gamut from discrimination to harassment, and if a case ends up in court, it can cost your company dearly.

State laws can have a significant impact on risk. For example, the employee-friendly nature of California law in the area of disability discrimination may contribute to the high frequency of lawsuits in the state. Discrimination cases filed at the state level in California are brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

FEHA applies to a broader swath of businesses, covering any company with five employees, versus a 15-employee minimum for cases brought under federal law as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“Not only are employment lawsuits more likely in those states, but the likelihood of catastrophic verdicts is also significantly higher,” said Mark Ogden, managing partner of employment at labor law firm Littler Mendelson.

“Unlike their federal counterparts, where compensatory and punitive damages combined are capped at $300,000, most state employment statutes impose no damages ceilings,” he said.  “Consequently, employers in high-risk states must ensure that their workforces are adequately trained regarding workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation and that policies forbidding such conduct are strictly enforced.”

From an employer’s perspective, settlement costs to resolve an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim, for example, fade in the face of additional – often unrecorded – costs to the organization. This includes the costs of:

  • The distraction of an organization’s staff for months as documents are gathered and prepared, an internal investigation is conducted, and time is invested in fighting the claim,
  • The loss of employee morale,
  • The potential loss of an employer’s reputation as an employer of choice for recruiting and retaining desirable employees, whether found guilty or innocent, and
  • Attorneys’ fees, which can cost as much or more than an eventual settlement, if the employer is found guilty.

The average single-claimant lawsuit results in defense costs of $250,000 and a jury verdict of $200,000.

 

Your strategy

Employers are advised to prevent employment discrimination and create a workplace culture that discourages employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation, with these actions:

  • Implement and integrate a strict policy that makes employment discrimination of any type unacceptable in your workplace.
  • Train your managers in the implementation of the anti-discrimination policy with the expectation that prevention is their responsibility.
  • Mandatory employee training should address many of the same issues as the managers’ training relative to employment discrimination.
  • Establish cultural expectations and norms.
  • Respond to an employee complaint about employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation in a timely, professional, confidential, policy-adhering manner. Address the employee complaint through to appeal, when necessary.

 

The insurance solution

While creating policies that minimize the chances of employee litigation, you need to protect yourself in case you are sued. And the best way to do that is by purchasing an employment practices liability insurance policy, which covers costs (including attorneys’ fees) and any damages associated with the following types of action:

  • Wrongful termination
  • Discrimination
  • Sexual harassment
  • Whistleblower claims
  • Wage and hour
  • Other employment-related claims such as libel, slander, invasion of privacy, mental anguish, assault, and breach of contract.

 

Call us for more details on how an EPLI policy can help protect your business from a wide variety of employee actions.