Beginning on January 1, 2021, Florida’s new “Verification of Employment Eligibility” statute will require many employers to use the federal E-Verify system before hiring any new employees. This new law could force significant changes to your hiring practices. What do Florida employers need to know about this significant development?
Legislative Background And Campaign Promises
E-Verify was introduced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration as a voluntary program. However, many employers in Florida will soon be faced with mandatory implementation of the web-based system to confirm employment eligibility for new hires.
Under preexisting federal law, all employers are required to complete an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form for each new employee to verify the identity and eligibility of that employee to work in the United States. Since its inception in 1996, most states have also encouraged voluntary participation in the federal government’s E-Verify program, which compares information supplied by an employer from its Form I-9 to information available to the federal government from various databases. Only nine states require E-Verify for all employers.
Since 2011, E-Verify has been required on all state projects in Florida. However, following a nationwide trend of growing support for the federal employment verification system, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida Senate Bill 664 on June 30, requiring all public employers – as well certain private employers – to use E-Verify beginning January 1, 2021.
As a gubernatorial candidate in 2018, DeSantis vowed to mandate the use of E-Verify among all employers in the state. This was controversial and opposed not only by some immigrant advocacy groups, but also by business groups — especially those in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Following Governor DeSantis’ signing of the bill, a spokesperson explained, “Given the high unemployment rate due to COVID-19, it is more important than ever to ensure that the state’s legal residents benefit from jobs that become available as Florida continue to reopen in a safe and smart manner.” While the measure expands the use of E-Verify, Florida does not join the states that require use of the system in hiring practices for all employers.
What Does the New Law Require?
There are varying obligations for employers depending on whether they are public or private, and whether they contract with the state or receive certain state incentives.
Public Employers And Private Employers Who Contract With The State Or Receive State Incentives
Once in effect, every Florida public employer, along with their private contractors and subcontractors, must enroll in and use the E-Verify system to confirm the eligibility of all employees hired after January 1, 2021. No public contract can be entered into without an E-Verify certificate.
Any contractor who hires a sub must require an affidavit stating that they don’t employ, contract with, or subcontract with any unauthorized immigrants. Importantly, this affidavit provides for all newly hired employees, not just those working on government contracts. This affidavit must be kept by the general contractor for the duration of the contract and all contractors will need to go through this process for each public project.
If a public employer has a good faith belief that these requirements have been knowingly violated, it can terminate the contract, without liability for breach of contract, or demand that its contractor terminate any noncompliant subcontractors. Terminations for purported violations of these requirements may be challenged in court within 20 days of the date of termination. However, if the contractor is in fact found guilty, the contractor will be barred from public contracting for at least a year after termination and may be held liable for any additional costs associated with the termination.
In addition to private employers who contract with public entities, these new E-Verify employment eligibility requirements will also apply to employers who receive taxpayer-funded incentives through the state Department of Economic Opportunity. Beginning on January 1, 2021, the DEO will not approve an economic development incentive application unless the application includes proof that the applicant business is registered with and uses the E-Verify system in the eligibility verification process for all newly hired employees. Should the DEO make a final determination that an awardee has failed to be compliant, the employer will be forced to repay all moneys received by the DEO as an economic incentive.
E-Verify For All Other Private Employers
For private employers who do not contract with the state or receive state incentives, Florida law will now require these private employers to use E-Verify, or alternatively use the Form I-9 and maintain copies of the documents used to complete the Form for three years (which is optional under federal law). If the E-Verify certificate or Form I-9 documentation is requested by certain parties (such as the State Attorney, Attorney General, Department of Law Enforcement, etc.), the employer must provide them with proof of the employee’s eligibility.
Private employers accused of non-compliance will be provided notice from the DEO and the employer must terminate any unauthorized employees, begin complying with the legal procedures, and respond with an affidavit of compliance within 30 days. Failure to do so risks potential suspension of existing licenses until the employer provides such an affidavit. If an employer fails to properly respond to a DEO notice three times in any 36-month period, it could permanently lose its business licenses and may be liable for additional civil or criminal liabilities.
The E-Verify requirements will also go into effect for the private sector on January 1, 2021. This new law will not apply to any employees that were hired before then. However, any existing employment contracts that need to be renewed or extended after that date will be required to go through the verification process without going through the E-Verify process.
Ensuring Compliance Readiness Is The Next Step for Employers
Public employers in Florida and those who bid on contracts with the state should be ready to comply with the new law by updating their onboarding and new hire practices. Private employers who choose not to use E-Verify should continue to complete and maintain Form I-9 verification records, including copies of the documents that were reviewed. The enforcement procedures under the new E-Verify mandate are significant, and failure to comply can seriously impact your ability to do business within the state.
Notably, government scrutiny of employment verification records at both the state and federal level has the potential to increase when the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. You can prepare for government reviews by periodically auditing your employment verification records to ensure you have been completed fully and properly.
Employers now have clarification that they will be able mandate the COVID-19 vaccine among their workers in certain circumstances without running afoul of key federal anti-discrimination laws, according to updated guidance issued Wednesday by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While there are numerous issues to consider before mandating that your employees get vaccinated, this guidance is the first official pronouncement on the subject from the employment law watchdog agency and provides an outline of various hurdles to overcome. Here are the top seven takeaways for employers from this critical development.
1. The EEOC indicates that employers can require their workers to get a COVID-19 vaccine in certain circumstances, even under the Emergency Use Authorization.
The agency’s updated FAQs do not unequivocally state that “employers can require the vaccine.” However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) repeatedly answers questions discussing what actions employers can take in response to various circumstances after an employer has mandated the vaccine. This approach plainly suggests there must be circumstances where employers are legally permitted to require vaccine immunization of their workers without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII, and other federal anti-discrimination laws. According to the EEOC, this is true even though the COVID-19 vaccine is only authorized under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), rather than approved under the full and comprehensive FDA vaccine licensure process, known as a Biologics License Application or “BLA.”
To be clear, the only scenario described by the EEOC as a permissible basis to mandate vaccination under the ADA is when a worker poses a “direct threat” to themselves or others by their physical presence in the workplace without being immunized. This means mandating vaccines is only permitted if workers would pose “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Therefore, if an employee is capable of fully performing their current job duties remotely without the potential spread of the virus to co-workers or work-related third parties, it does not appear that you can require that they get vaccinated.
2. Employers that require the COVID-19 vaccine must consider reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
Notably, simply because your company chooses to mandate vaccine usage for those workers who may pose a direct threat to themselves or others does not mean you have complete freedom to require the vaccine for all such workers. If an individual cannot be vaccinated because of a disability, you need to determine whether you can provide a reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship) that would eliminate or reduce the safety risk. You cannot automatically exclude them from the workplace or take any other negative action against them.
First and foremost, the EEOC recommends that those managers responsible for communicating with your employees about compliance with your vaccination requirement should know how to recognize an employee’s accommodation request. You should also train your managers about the process they should follow to refer accommodation requests through the proper channels for consideration. While the EEOC’s guidance does not mention this, you should strongly consider providing details about the accommodation request procedure in writing to all of your employees (whether in hard copy, electronically, or both).
Next, the EEOC indicates you should engage in a flexible, interactive process with any employee requesting an accommodation to identify options that do not constitute an undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). This process should include determining whether it is necessary to obtain supporting documentation about the employee’s disability and considering the possible options for accommodation given the nature of the workforce and the employee’s position. Some things you should consider include the prevalence in the workplace of employees who already have received a COVID-19 vaccination, the amount of involvement with customers, and the rate of vaccination in your community, as well as the amount of contact with others whose vaccination status could be unknown. You should consult your Fisher Phillips’ attorney in developing a medical inquiry for an employee’s doctor or a protocol for responding to requests for accommodation more generally.
Finally, the EEOC reminds employers that it is unlawful to disclose that an employee is receiving a reasonable accommodation, just as it is a violation of federal law to retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation. Likewise, you should not reveal which employees have or have not been vaccinated.
3. Similarly, employers need to consider reasonable accommodations for employees who are unable to receive the vaccine for religious reasons.
The EEOC says you must provide a reasonable accommodation if an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents them from receiving the vaccination – unless it would pose an undue hardship under Title VII. The definition of “undue hardship” is slightly different in the religious context compared to the disability context, as courts have defined it as simply “having more than a de minimis cost or burden” on an employer.
While you should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, you would be justified in requesting additional supporting information if you have an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance. The key word here is “objective.” This is a delicate area of the law and you should not unilaterally contact the employee’s place or worship seeking proof about their level of belief, or engage in any conduct that could raise potential discrimination issues. We recommend consulting with an attorney before making such a request to any of your employees.
4. Employers can require employees to show proof that they received a COVID-19 vaccination.
Assuming you can demonstrate that a mandatory vaccine is appropriate and that no accommodation requirements are in play, the EEOC indicates you can require workers to prove they have received the COVID-19 vaccine. The EEOC says that simply requesting proof of receipt of the vaccination is not likely to elicit information about a disability and, therefore, is not a disability-related inquiry.
However, subsequent questions, such as asking why an individual did not receive a vaccination, may elicit information about a disability and would be subject to the pertinent ADA standard that disability-related inquiries be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” For this reason, if you require employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination from a pharmacy or their own healthcare provider, you may want to warn the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the proof in order to avoid implicating the ADA. If you do receive medical information along with proof of vaccination, you should store the medical information in a confidential medical file consistent with ADA requirements.
5. The administration of a COVID-19 vaccine is not a “medical examination” for purposes of the ADA.
The EEOC confirmed that the act of administering the COVID-19 vaccine is not an ADA “medical examination.” Therefore, if you (or a third party with whom you contract to administer the vaccine) simply administer the vaccine to an employee, the EEOC does not consider you to be seeking information about an individual’s impairments or current health status – but see the next point about questionnaires relating to giving the vaccine.
6. Employers can pose pre-screening vaccination questions, so long as they comply with ADA requirements.
The EEOC’s FAQs offered some direction for employers who want to ask pre-screening vaccination questions as they administer the inoculation. The first thing employers need to know is that pre-screening vaccination questions may implicate the ADA’s provision on disability-related inquiries (defined as any such inquiries likely to elicit information about a disability). Therefore, if you administer the vaccine, you must show that any pre-screening questions are job-related and consistent with business necessity. To meet this standard, the EEOC says, you need to have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that an employee who does not answer the questions and, therefore, does not receive a vaccination, will pose a direct threat to the health or safety of themselves or others.
The EEOC does explain that there are two circumstances in which these screening questions can be asked without needing to satisfy the “job-related and consistent with business necessity” requirement. First, you can offer the vaccination to employees on a voluntary basis (i.e. employees choose whether to be vaccinated), which means the employee’s decision to answer pre-screening, disability-related questions would also be voluntary. If an employee chooses not to answer these questions, you may decline to administer the vaccine to them but may not retaliate against, intimidate, or threaten them for refusing to answer the questions.
Second, if an employee receives an employer-required vaccination from a third party with whom your organization does not have a contract (such as a pharmacy or other healthcare provider), the ADA “job-related and consistent with business necessity” restrictions on disability-related inquiries would not apply.
Finally, regardless of whether you meet the “job-related and consistent with business necessity” standard, the ADA requires you to keep any employee medical information obtained in the course of the vaccination program confidential. On a related note, the agency reminds employers that any pre-screening questions that ask about genetic information, such as family members’ medical histories or immune systems of family members, may violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). As the EEOC explicitly says that “it is not yet clear what screening checklists for contraindications will be provided with COVID-19 vaccinations,” this is an issue that employers should be aware of as we move closer to vaccines being provided to members of the general population.
To avoid these complications, the EEOC says that employers who want to ensure that employees have been vaccinated may want to request proof of vaccination instead of administering the vaccine themselves. However, to steer clear of unintended GINA violations, you may still want to warn the employee not to provide genetic information as part of the proof. If this warning is provided, the EEOC says any genetic information you receive in response to your request for proof of vaccination will be considered inadvertent and, therefore, not a GINA violation.
7. Employees may be confused about their ability to “refuse” the vaccine as a result of the EUA.
We expect that some employees may believe they have the right the “refuse” the vaccine even if mandated by their employer. That’s because of language in the EEOC’s updated guidance about the EUA that may cause confusion.
The EEOC notes that, for any vaccine issued under an Emergency Use Authorization, the FDA (and the vaccination provider) has an obligation to inform vaccine recipients about its potential benefits and risks, the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown, whether any alternative products are available, and “that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine.” This language comes from the federal statute governing the EUA.
The FDA’s website (cited by the EEOC) says that the option to refuse is typically included in a “fact sheet” provided to the individual receiving the vaccine (or, alternatively, the party administering the vaccine can direct the individual to the weblink to view the fact sheet online). That fact sheet for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine can be found here, and it explicitly says that “the recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse [the] Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.”
This directive seems to be targeted at whether an individual can be forced to take the vaccine by a government entity (as a New York lawmaker recently suggested), not whether an employer can condition an individual’s continued employment on taking the vaccine. After all, in at-will employment settings, an employee can always pursue alternative employment if they do not want to get vaccinated as a condition of their current job. Note that this analysis may be different in unionized settings governed by a collective bargaining agreement. If you are working with a union, you should consult with your Fisher Phillips counsel before proceeding with any mandatory vaccination plan.
Conclusion
Although the EEOC seems to permit mandating vaccinations of employees in certain circumstances, most employers should consider encouraging rather than mandating vaccinations due to potential related risks. Whether you simply encourage or mandate vaccinations, you should be prepared with at least a policy framework and a communications plan as wider availability of the vaccine draws closer.
Article courtesy of Fisher Phillips
Federal coronavirus-related paid-leave benefits are set to expire at the end of the year, and if those benefits aren’t extended, some workers may be left without coverage as the pandemic persists through the winter months.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which took effect in April 2020, is a temporary measure that provides COVID-19-related paid-sick-leave and paid-family-leave benefits to certain eligible workers.
Will FFCRA’s emergency benefits be renewed as the coronavirus crisis continues? Will President-elect Joe Biden make expanding paid leave a priority? Here’s what employment attorneys had to say.
Coronavirus cases in the U.S. recently hit record highs with more than 150,000 new cases reported each day since Nov. 16, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FFCRA benefits will end on Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them.
For now, many employers are required to provide up to 80 hours of paid-sick-leave benefits if employees need leave to care for their own or someone else’s coronavirus-related issues. The legislation also updated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide workers with job-protected, paid leave when they can’t work—either onsite or remotely—because their son’s or daughter’s school or child care service is closed due to the public health emergency.
FFCRA’s emergency paid-leave provisions apply to certain public employers and businesses with fewer than 500 employees, and there are exceptions available for small businesses and companies that employ health care workers.
Will FFCRA leave be extended? With the upcoming change in the presidential administration, employment attorneys are divided in their predictions.
“It will be renewed,” predicted Philip Voluck, an attorney with Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck in Blue Bell, Pa. He said it may be renewed by the Trump administration, noting the Biden administration does not assume office until Jan. 20, 2021. Voluck said new legislation may expand the FFCRA’s reach and clarify employer’s paid-leave obligations.
Employers covered by FFCRA earn refundable tax credits that reimburse them for the cost of providing paid leave related to COVID-19. “These need to be carried over to any new legislation to ease the financial strain on covered employers,” he noted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants Congress to finalize a new coronavirus economic stimulus bill before the end of the year, but that might be difficult during a lame-duck session, according to Politico.
Sara Jodka, an attorney with Dickinson Wright in Columbus, Ohio, believes that there will be a FFCRA extension or supplemental legislation but not until Biden takes office. Biden’s current COVID-19-related leave plans would expand FFCRA to provide for 100 percent wage coverage up to $1,400 a week, provide for paid leave during a mandatory quarantine or isolation period, and expand coverage to domestic workers, caregivers, gig-economy workers and other independent contractors. Employers would also continue to receive tax deductions and reimbursement for COVID-19-related paid leave.
Charles Thompson, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in San Francisco, noted that the Biden administration may focus on other coronavirus priorities, such as putting money directly in people’s pockets.
In addition to the FFCRA’s paid-leave provisions, there is the longer-term consideration of whether a lasting nationwide paid-leave law may garner bipartisan support.
In the 116th Congress, Democrats and Republicans put forward several proposals to provide paid leave to new parents. In December 2019, Congress passed paid parental leave for qualifying federal employees. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he “will not stop fighting until this benefit is provided to all workers nationwide.”
Biden supports the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, which is known as the FAMILY Act. The proposed legislation would provide workers with paid time off to care for a newborn or recently adopted child, take care of themselves or family members with serious health conditions, or care for military family members and help them prepare for deployments.
Jodka noted, however, that the Biden-Harris campaign platform focused on expanding other employee rights, such as making it easier for workers to organize and collectively bargain, increasing the federal minimum wage, and extending overtime pay to more workers.
She thinks any paid-leave law will likely stem from an amendment to the FMLA, like the FFCRA did. “Employers, especially smaller ones, struggled—and continue to struggle—to meet the paid-leave requirements of the FFCRA,” she said, “so it is likely that first attention will be to the COVID-19 response with a discussion of a federal paid-leave law well off into the future.”
Some states and cities already provide paid leave, and their laws operate independently of federal law, Voluck explained. “States will likely become even more generous with paid leave,” he predicted.
SHRM has long advocated for a voluntary federal framework for paid leave, rather than a fragmented patchwork of state and local leave laws, and recently outlined employers’ need for consistency and simplicity in a letter to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau.
Thompson thinks that states and local jurisdictions “will continue to be at the forefront of requiring that employers provide COVID-related leave.”
Many jurisdictions—including Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington and Washington, D.C.—have enacted their own emergency paid-leave laws in response to the pandemic. Many cities in California and elsewhere have also passed supplemental leave ordinances. Employers should note that state and local COVID-19-related paid-leave laws may have different expiration dates.
“I think state laws will continue to trend upward in favor of paid-leave law mandates,” Jodka said. “The most typical is a paid-sick-leave mandate, and with COVID-19 cases rising, the need to value proper medical care and time away from work without risking losing a paycheck is at an all-time high.”
Florida voters just approved a constitutional amendment that will gradually raise the state minimum wage to $15 per hour in 2026. What does this mean for employers? Here are the top five things you need to know about yesterday’s groundbreaking election result.
Conclusion
These changes come as employers continue to recover from the effects of COVID-19. However, with proper thought and proactive planning, you can get ahead of the changes and be ready as they come. We will continue to monitor developments related to this new law and its effect on Florida employers.
For 2021, the dollar limit for employee contributions to health flexible spending accounts (health FSAs) through salary reductions remains unchanged at $2,750, the IRS announced on Oct. 27 when it issued Revenue Procedure 2020-45.
For health FSA plans that permit the carryover of unused amounts, the maximum carryover amount for 2021 is $550, an increase of $50 from the original 2020 carryover limit.
The guidance also includes annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs), if any were made, for other employee benefit plans. For instance, for tax year 2021, the monthly limit for qualified transportation benefits remains $270, as is the monthly limit for qualified parking.
The IRS a day earlier announced 2021 contribution limits for 401(k) and similar defined contribution plans and annual limit adjustments for defined benefit pension plans.
The IRS released 2021 HSA contribution limits in May, giving employers and HSA administrators plenty of time to adjust their systems for the new year. The individual HSA contribution limit will be $3,600 (up from $3,550) and the family contribution limit will be $7,200 (up from $7,100).
IRS Notice 2020-33, issued on May 12 as part of COVID-19 relief, raised the amount of funds that health FSA plans can carry over for 2020 to $550, up from $500. For 2021, the maximum carryover amount remains $550.
There are two options for FSA extensions; employers can adopt either or neither, but can’t offer both:
Employers will have to revise their COVID-19-related safety policies and practices to meet new guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on what it means to have been in “close contact” with an infected person.
Under prior guidance, the CDC defined a close contact as someone who spent at least 15 consecutive minutes within six feet of an infected person, thus putting the individual at higher risk of contracting the virus.
The CDC updated its guidance to define a close contact as:
“We are now looking at cumulative rather than consecutive,” said Jonathan A. Segal, an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia. So a person who was exposed three times in a 24-hour period—for five minutes during each encounter—would meet the definition.
“This broader definition most likely will have a big impact on schools, hospitals and workplaces where individuals have several separate interactions with others—totaling 15 minutes or more—over the course of a day,” said Catherine Burgett, an attorney with Frost Brown Todd in Columbus, Ohio.
What should employers do in light of the new guidelines? “Revise your current policies and forms based on the new definition of close contact and … wear a mask,” Burgett said.
An important consequence of this revision is the impact it will have on employers’ ability to maintain staffing because it establishes a much lower threshold trigger for required quarantine.
Employers should have infected employees identify others who worked within six feet of them, for 15 minutes or more, within the 48 hours prior to the sick individual showing symptoms. This is being called this the “6-15-48 analysis.”
This new guidance will make contact tracing using the CDC’s 6-15-48 analysis even more difficult. When determining whether an employee has been exposed to an infected worker for 15 minutes or more, employers will now need to look at brief interactions between employees and infected workers that may occur several times a day, instead of one or two prolonged exposures.
The CDC advises most employers to send home any employees who have had a risk of exposure under this analysis. Those employees should maintain social distancing and self-monitor for 14 days from the exposure.
All industries will be impacted, but the most significant impact will be to those businesses that are not considered to be critical infrastructure workplaces. Those businesses will find that more employees will be required to be quarantined under this new rule, and thus will have fewer employees available to work in their facilities.
If a business is considered essential, however, CDC guidelines say exposed employees can continue to work onsite while self-monitoring and wearing a face mask. Employers that are considered critical infrastructure will be less impacted, because even their directly exposed employees can still work, as long as they are asymptomatic and the company takes the steps required by the CDC.
As a result of the new definition of close contact, employers should review their COVID-19-related infection-control plans with this new definition in mind and, at a minimum, update their contact-tracing questionnaires.
Instead of simply asking infected workers who they were near for a prolonged period of time, employers may want to view surveillance video, documents that show when an employee clocked in and out, and other items that will help determine workers’ interactions.
Employers may also want to consider obtaining a waiver from the infected worker in order to share his or her diagnosis. This will allow the employer to interview employees about their interactions with the worker to determine who was exposed to the infected individual.
The IRS has issued relief from certain Form 1094-C and 1095-C reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act relating to employee health plans, as well as relief from certain reporting-related penalties.
As a refresher, the ACA generally requires four forms to be produced each year, and the names are anything but intuitive:
Which form your plan would be required to file or furnish depends on whether you are an ALE, and how you fill out the form and whether you offer fully insured or self-insured coverage.
The IRS has extended the deadline for furnishing Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals. The typical deadline to report 2020 plan information is January 31, 2021. However, the new relief extends the deadline to March 2, 2021. The extension is automatic, and the IRS has indicated that no further extensions will be granted, and it will not respond to such requests.
Be aware that this extension does not apply to the 1094-B and 1094-C filings with the IRS. The deadline for submitting these filings to the IRS will remain March 1, 2021 (since the original due date of February 28 falls on a Sunday), for paper filings and March 31, 2021, for those filing electronically. However, while the automatic extension does not apply to these deadlines, filers may still request an extension from the IRS.
Recognizing that the main purpose of Forms 1095-B and 1095-C was to allow an individual to compute his or her tax liability relating to the individual mandate, and because the individual mandate has been reduced to zero, the IRS has granted relief from furnishing certain documents to individuals.
The IRS indicated that it will not assess penalties for failure to furnish a Form 1095-B if two conditions are met. First, the reporting entity must post a prominent notice on its website stating that individuals may receive a copy of their 2020 Form 1095-B upon request, along with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Second, the reporting entity must furnish the 2020 Form 1095-B to the responsible individual within 30 days of receipt of the request. The statements may be furnished electronically if certain additional requirements are met.
The same reporting relief does not extend to ALEs that are required to furnish Form 1095-C. This form must continue to be furnished to full-time employees, and penalties will continue to be assessed for a failure to furnish Form 1095-C. However, the relief does generally apply to furnishing the Form 1095-C to participants who were not full-time employees for any month of 2019 if the requirements above are met. This would typically include part-time employees, COBRA continuees, or retirees.
Note that while these requirements for furnishing the 1095-B and 1095-C to individuals has been modified, these forms must still be transmitted to the IRS along with their Form 1094 counterparts.
In the final piece of good news from the IRS, it announced relief from penalties for incorrect or incomplete information on any of these forms. This relief applies to both missing and inaccurate taxpayer identification numbers and birthdays, as well as other required information.
The reporting entity must be able to show that it made a good faith effort to comply with the reporting requirements. A successful showing of good faith will show that an employer made reasonable efforts to prepare for the reporting requirements and the furnishing to employees, such as gathering and transmitting the necessary information to the person preparing the forms.
However, the relief does not apply to reporting entities that completely fail to file or furnish the forms at all.
Finally, and importantly, the IRS has indicated that this will be the last year that it will provide this good faith reporting relief.
Prior to each year’s Medicare Part D annual enrollment period, plan sponsors that offer prescription drug coverage must provide notices of creditable or noncreditable coverage to Medicare-eligible individuals.
The required notices may be provided in annual enrollment materials, separate mailings or electronically. Whether plan sponsors use the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) model notices or other notices that meet prescribed standards, they must provide the required disclosures no later than Oct. 15, 2019.
Group health plan sponsors that provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare Part D-eligible individuals must also disclose annually to the CMS—generally, by March 1—whether the coverage is creditable or noncreditable. The disclosure obligation applies to all plan sponsors that provide prescription drug coverage, even those that do not offer prescription drug coverage to retirees.
Background
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 requires group health plan sponsors that provide prescription drug coverage to disclose annually to individuals eligible for Medicare Part D whether the plan’s coverage is “creditable” or “noncreditable.” Prescription drug coverage is creditable when it is at least actuarially equivalent to Medicare’s standard Part D coverage and noncreditable when it does not provide, on average, as much coverage as Medicare’s standard Part D plan. The CMS has provided a Creditable Coverage Simplified Determination method that plan sponsors can use to determine if a plan provides creditable coverage.
Disclosure of whether their prescription drug coverage is creditable allows individuals to make informed decisions about whether to remain in their current prescription drug plan or enroll in Medicare Part D during the Part D annual enrollment period. Individuals who do not enroll in Medicare Part D during their initial enrollment period (IEP), and who subsequently go at least 63 consecutive days without creditable coverage (e.g., they dropped their creditable coverage or have non-creditable coverage) generally will pay higher premiums if they enroll in a Medicare drug plan at a later date.
Who Gets the Notices?
Notices must be provided to all Part D eligible individuals who are covered under, or eligible for, the employer’s prescription drug plan—regardless of whether the coverage is primary or secondary to Medicare Part D. “Part D eligible individuals” are generally age 65 and older or under age 65 and disabled, and include active employees and their dependents, COBRA participants and their dependents, and retirees and their dependents.
Because the notices advise plan participants whether their prescription drug coverage is creditable or noncreditable, no notice is required when prescription drug coverage is not offered.
Also, employers that provide prescription drug coverage through a Medicare Part D Employer Group Waiver Plan (EGWP) are not required to provide the creditable coverage notice to individuals who are eligible for the EGWP.
Notice Requirements
The Medicare Part D annual enrollment period runs from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7. Each year, before the enrollment period begins (i.e., by Oct. 14), plan sponsors must notify Part D eligible individuals whether their prescription drug coverage is creditable or non-creditable. The Oct. 14 deadline applies to insured and self-funded plans, regardless of plan size, employer size or grandfathered status
Part D eligible individuals must be given notices of the creditable or non-creditable status of their prescription drug coverage:
According to CMS, the requirement to provide the notice prior to an individual’s IEP will also be satisfied as long as the notice is provided to all plan participants each year before the beginning of the Medicare Part D annual enrollment period.
Model notices that can be used to satisfy creditable/non-creditable coverage disclosure requirements are available in both English and Spanish on the CMS website. Plan sponsors that choose not to use the model disclosure notices must provide notices that meet prescribed content standards.
Notices of creditable/non-creditable coverage may be included in annual enrollment materials, sent in separate mailings or delivered electronically. Plan sponsors may provide electronic notice to plan participants who have regular work-related computer access to the sponsor’s electronic information system. However, plan sponsors that use this disclosure method must inform participants that they are responsible for providing notices to any Medicare-eligible dependents covered under the group health plan.
Electronic notice may also be provided to employees who do not have regular work-related computer access to the plan sponsor’s electronic information system and to retirees or COBRA qualified beneficiaries, but only with a valid email address and their prior consent. Before individuals can effectively consent, they must be informed of the right to receive a paper copy, how to withdraw consent, how to update address information, and any hardware/software requirements to access and save the disclosure. In addition to emailing the notice to the individual, the sponsor must also post the notice (if not personalized) on its website.
In Closing
Plan sponsors that offer prescription drug coverage will have to determine whether their drug plan’s coverage satisfies CMS’s creditable coverage standard and provide appropriate creditable/noncreditable coverage disclosures to Medicare-eligible individuals no later than Oct. 15, 2020.
Employers of healthcare providers will soon be required to provide paid sick leave and partially paid family leave to a broader category of employees, and all employers subject to the law now have clarification on a number of other obligations, thanks to a revised set of regulations released by the Labor Department late Friday afternoon. After a federal court judge recently knocked down the agency’s first attempt to provide employers with practical direction in complying with the Families First Coronavirus Act (FFCRA), the Labor Department issued a second set of rules on September 11 that in some instances revise and in other instances clarify employer compliance duties. Here are the key changes and clarifications, which are slated to go into effect on September 16, that employers need to know about:
Three weeks ago many of your employees started inquiring about when you were going to stop taking their payroll taxes out and you likely told them you were awaiting guidance and nothing would happen until September 1st. Guess what?? It’s September 1st and employees are starting to ask again. The big picture they need to know is that it’s a temporary delay not a permanent cut.
Late Friday (8/28), the Department of Treasury released some guidance. Many questions remain unanswered, like, can we simply decline to participate in the deferral or what if an employee leaves before they’ve repaid the deferred taxes? The guidance doesn’t provide us an option to not participate and states the employer “may make arrangements to otherwise collect the total Applicable Taxes from the employee”….. which means they’ve never tried to collect money from a terminated employee!
That being said, we will do the best we can with the information provided thus far. Most employees don’t understand that this is a deferral or delay of taxes, not a permanent cut, for employees making $104,000 or less annually. All delayed taxes would need to be repaid by the end of April 2021. Meaning, while most employees would have the chance to get a 6.2% boost in their paychecks for the last 4 months of this year, this could cause them to get slammed with a 12.4% withholding for the first 4 months of 2021. The concern is that once employees get accustomed to the increase in pay, the double down approach to collect at the beginning of the new year may cause them undue financial stress.
The tax deferral has the potential to cause more aggravation and confusion among staff than its worth, so we recommend the opt out approach. The guidance doesn’t provide employers the option to not offer to their employees and we know plaintiffs’ attorneys are always looking to make a quick buck, so we recommend providing employees with the information and let them make an informed decision.
We have drafted a sample letter that you may wish to share with staff to explain the deferral and requires them to complete and sign paperwork to defer their tax for the remainder of 2020. The letter also states that nothing will change on their withholding unless they choose to opt in to the tax holiday. Please contact our office if you would like a copy of this sample letter.