IRS Announces 2013 Pension Plan Limitations

 

On October 18, 2012, the IRS announced cost-of-living adjustments for 2013 retirement plan contributions.  Individuals will be able to contribute more to retirement plans in 2013.  Highlights of the IRS announcement include:

  • Increasing the salary deferral limit for 401(k) and 403(b) plans from $17,000 to $17,500.
  • Leaving unchanged the additional catch-up contribution for employees age 50 and older at $5,500.
  • Increasing the limit on total contributions to defined contribution plans from $50,000 to $51,000.
  • Leaving unchanged the definition of highly compensated employee as employees making $115,000 per year.
  • Increasing the amount of compensation that can be taken into consideration for retirement plan contributions from $250,000 to $255,000.
  • Increasing the contribution limit to individual retirement accounts (IRAs) from $5,000 to $5,500, but leaving unchanged the IRA catch-up contribution for those age 50 and older at $1,000.

The Social Security Administration earlier announced that the Social Security Wage Base for 2013 will increase to $113,700.

Protecting Against Unfair Competition: Will Your Company’s Non-Compete Agreements Survive a Merger?

Marc Fleischauer by Marc Fleischauer

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided a case about non-competition agreements and the surprising effect of corporate mergers on their enforceability.  The decision changes Ohio law significantly and gives rise to urgent and specific drafting recommendations for employers.

In Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel, 2012-Ohio-2297 (2012), the Court was faced with a common scenario.  “Company A” had required certain employees to sign restrictive covenants (commonly called “non-compete agreements”) prohibiting solicitation of customers and other competition against Company A for two years following termination of employment.  Company A later merged with “Company B” to form “Company AB.”  The same employees continued working for Company AB for several years after the merger, doing the same jobs with no apparent interruption.

Roughly four years after the merger, the employees quit their jobs at Company AB and joined a competing business.  According to the Court, “They soon used their contacts to recruit multiple customer accounts from [Company AB].  Within six months, 19 customers had transferred $1 million in revenue….”

Company AB sued to enforce the employees’ agreements with Company A, based on the merger and the operation of Ohio Revised Statute § 1701.82.  That statute says that a newly merged company is “vested” in the contractual rights of the original companies “without further act or deed.”  Company AB maintained that it had automatically taken on all the same contract rights originally belonging to Company A.

The Supreme Court decided that indeed Company AB could enforce the agreements as written, but it added a huge caveat that dramatically altered the effect of mergers in Ohio going forward.  The employees had only agreed not to compete with Company A; the agreements did not expressly include similar restrictions against competing with Company A’s “successors and assigns,” which would have included Company AB.  So while Company AB could technically prevent competition with the now-defunct Company A, it was powerless to prevent competition against Company AB, according to the Court.

Further, the Court held that the same merger that had transformed Company A into Company AB was itself was a “termination of employment” event, starting the clock on the employees’ two-year non-competition requirement.  By the time the employees quit Company AB and started competing, any contractual obligations they had owed to Company A had already long expired.

In the current economic climate, corporate mergers and other acquisitions are commonplace as companies seek to consolidate or otherwise change their corporate status.  Often these corporate changes have little or no practical effect on employees, who at most might see a new name on their paychecks.  But with this new Supreme Court decision, employers may be inadvertently giving away their restrictive covenant rights.  To avoid an Acordia outcome, employers should take these steps now:

  • Ensure that non-compete contracts define “company” to include “successors and assigns,” such that employees will remain contractually obligated regardless of what corporate form the employer takes in the future.
  • Draft such agreements to make clear that mere mergers or other legal changes in corporate form do not trigger the post-termination commencement of the non-compete period.
  • If you suspect that the company’s existing agreements are already susceptible to the new Acordia outcome, especially if your company has ever undergone a change in corporate structure, consider amending or rewriting existing agreements with the help of experienced employment counsel.

Employee Handbook Update: Six Common Mistakes to Avoid

  Allison Michael  by Allison Michael

A well-drafted employee handbook is an important tool to reduce employment law liability. In drafting or updating employee handbooks, it is important to keep in mind the purposes of an employee handbook:

  • May serve as key evidence in the legal defense against an employee claim; 
  • Ensures that company policies are in compliance with state and federal laws; 
  • Communicates your company’s expectations regarding employee behavior; 
  • Familiarizes employees with your company: its history, culture, and vision for the future; 
  • Informs employees about the benefits your company provides (i.e., vacation etc.); 
  • Answers frequently asked questions from your employees.

The following are six common mistakes employers sometimes make in the handbook drafting and review process:

  1. Missing or Partial Policies. While most policies are discretionary on the part of an employer (i.e., a dress code policy) there are some policies that must be included in an employee handbook by law (i.e., Family Medical Leave Act policy). 
  2. Internal Contradictions. Over the years, the employee handbook may be reviewed, revised or updated on a piece meal, ad hoc basis. This can result in contradictions between policies. An example of a potentially damaging contradiction is where the handbook contains employment at-will disclaimers, but also states that the employer will always go through progressive discipline steps, in order, prior to discharging an employee. 
  3. Non-Specific Conduct Rules. For the purposes of defending virtually any employment claim, it is important that the prohibited conduct that gave rise to the employee’s discharge was spelled out as clearly as possible to the employee so that there was no question that he or she knew that engaging in the conduct could lead to discharge. For example, it is better to state as a work rule: “Insubordination, including failure or refusal to follow orders of a Supervisor or to carry out assignments or instructions, raising your voice to, threatening or cursing at, or using inappropriate gestures at or near a Supervisor, or disrespecting the authority of a Supervisor in any manner,” rather than simply “Insubordination.” 
  4. Outdated or Inapplicable Policies. Older handbooks or handbooks that were adapted from a purchased “sample handbook” often contain policies that no longer apply or never applied to the majority of employees. If, for example, the company only provides company credit cards to one or two managers and there are over 100 employees, there is no reason to have a two-page policy devoted to the rules pertaining to credit cards in the handbook. Instead, use a separate memo and acknowledgment form devoted to that policy for the few affected employees. 
  5. Too Much Information. This mistake builds on number four above. A handbook is a guide. If a handbook is too detailed and lengthy it can be more difficult for some employees to read, and take away from an employer’s needed flexibility in some circumstances. While there are policies that absolutely should be included in a handbook, including equal opportunity and sexual harassment policies, there are other policies which are better addressed in bulletins or memos to the particular employees affected, such as the credit card policy mentioned in number four above. 
  6. No Signed Acknowledgment. The best drafted handbook in the world may as well have never been written if the employer cannot prove that the employee received and reviewed it. A signed handbook receipt acknowledgment from every employee is essential in demonstrating that the employees were aware of the policies and procedures contained therein, particularly for defending legal claims related to employee discipline and discharge.

Fired for “Pants on Fire”: When Lies, GPS, and Employee Handbooks Meet

Sasha VanDeGrift by Sasha VanDeGrift

One of the staples of the little kid lexicon is the expression “liar, liar, pants on fire!”  While there appears to be no direct correlation between flaming trousers and someone taking liberties with the truth, there does appear to be a common correlation between lying at work and getting fired.  It might have something to do with employers thinking that if they pay someone, they should be able to trust his or her word.  Silly employers!

Even employers in significant positions of public trust occasionally find their employees’ britches burning.  Case in point: Philip Mordick v. City of Dayton.  In Mordick, the City of Dayton fired Mordick, a police officer, after he filed a false report of his whereabouts while he was on patrol.  Mordick, 2nd Dist. 24663, 2012-Ohio-289 (for the full text of the Opinion:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2012/2012-ohio-289.pdf
). 

Officer Mordick probably should have realized that his lie was likely to be discovered: he filed the false report in front of another officer, Officer Cash, while they were in the same police cruiser.  When Officer Mordick left the cruiser, ostensibly looking for his wayward girlfriend, Officer Cash contacted their sergeant and informed him that she and Officer Mordick were not at the location that Officer Mordick had reported.  The sergeant verified Officers Mordick and Cash’s location by tracking the cruiser’s GPS unit, confirming that Officer Cash was telling the truth and Officer Mordick had lied. 

When Officer Mordick returned to the cruiser, he called the sergeant, who asked Officer Mordick where he really was.  Officer Mordick admitted his true location.  Then, Officer Mordick drove to the location where he had falsely claimed to be. 

The City of Dayton charged Mordick with several violations of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations (the “Regs”) (basically the employee handbook for the City of Dayton police), including Rule of Conduct 8.5, which specifies:

No officer will knowingly falsify any report, document, or record or cause to be entered any inaccurate, false, or improper information on records, documents, or reports of the Department or of any court or alter any record, document, or report except by a supplemental report, document, or report. If an investigation reveals that an officer has violated this section, their employment with the Dayton Police Department will be terminated.

The City of Dayton found that Officer Mordick had violated the Regs and terminated his employment.  That decision was affirmed by the Civil Services Board, the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, and now by the Second District Court of Appeals.

Most “pants on fire” cases are not this clear-cut.  More importantly, not all policies plainly state that “if you lie about X, we will fire you.”  The takeaway:

  • For employees: lying at work is a bad idea, especially in front of a witness and in a GPS-equipped vehicle.
  • For employers: when the evidence is clear that an employee was lying and you have a very carefully drafted policy specifying that the particular type of lie is grounds for termination, that is strong evidence in favor of termination.  It might seem a little late in the year for New Year’s Resolutions, but it is always advisable to dust off the employee handbook and give it a fresh read. 

Honesty is always the best policy, especially when that policy is clearly spelled out in writing…

Employer Collective Arbitration Prohibited

In a victory for employees, the NLRB recently held in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (Jan. 2012), that an arbitration agreement that prohibits employees from filing class action lawsuits violates the National Labor Relations Act.

In D.R. Horton, the company required employees to sign an agreement that required them to arbitrate their disputes. However, the agreement provided that the arbitrator would not have the power to consolidate claims or award relief on a class basis.

The Claimant’s attorney notified the company that he had been retained to represent a class of employees in a Fair Labor Standards Act case contending that the employees had been improperly classified as exempt and that he wished to arbitrate the dispute. In response, the company cited the class prohibition in the arbitration clause and claimed the notice to arbitrate was ineffective.

The NLRB in a 2-0 decision found that filing a collective or class action claim constituted protective concerted activity which is protected by Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.  Moreover, the Board determined that such an arbitration clause would cause employees to believe they were prohibited from filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge.  Therefore, the Board determined that such arbitration clauses are prohibited. 

The Board’s decision is significant.  It applies to both union and non-union employers. Furthermore, it casts renewed doubt on the utility of employment arbitration clauses as a means of eliminating class action disputes. Such clauses had become more popular in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case enforcing an arbitration provision that prohibited class action lawsuits by members of the public. AT&T Mobility v. Conception, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).

Employers are cautioned to have their arbitration clauses reviewed by counsel before asking their employees to sign them.  In addition to problems with clauses that prohibit class actions, courts have found other restrictions in employer/employee arbitration clauses to be unconscionable or unenforceable.   Similarly, companies should carefully consider whether they want to include arbitration clauses as a means of alternative dispute resolution in other business agreements.  This is especially true because the traditional benefits of arbitration (i.e., faster and cheaper resolution) may not be present depending upon how the arbitration provision is drafted.

Are You a State Funded Employer For Workers’ Comp Coverage But Unable to Qualify for Group Rating in the Past?

David  Korte  by David Korte

If so, legal action has been initiated on your behalf in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, suggesting that, by providing discounted premiums to employers that qualified for Group Rating discounts, the Ohio BWC conversely charged unnecessarily high premiums to state fund employers that did not qualify for the discounts. The time frame for which damages are requested begins in July, 2001 and runs for a period of 7 years. At this point, the BWC, as expected, denies inappropriate or inequitable results from the Group Rating discount programs in which many employers have participated through the years.

Many of you may have already received notice of this class action. If you believe you fall into the category of employers affected during the time frame involved, you don’t need to do anything to possibly qualify for damages resulting from the action. However, if you might otherwise qualify for those damages, but don’t wish to partake in same, you must complete written notice, to be filed with the court and with the attorneys for the named parties, in order to be excluded from any economic benefit to be derived from the cause of action. There are benefits and detriments with both options, primarily centering on protecting your company’s individual right to pursue damages under the same theory.

What’s In Store for State Fund Employers from BWC?

David  Korte  by David Korte

The subject of Workers Compensation does not always conjure up visions of good news for employers in Ohio, but there may be some positive developments on the horizon. Consider, for instance:

  • Expected Loss Rates for the next fiscal year are expected to remain the same
  • Cafeteria Plan Discounts are being given serious consideration for implementation in the 2013 Rating Year, with options to include:
    • Drug Free Workplace Discount;
    • Safety Council Participation Discount;
    • Potential Mandatory Vocational Rehab for Claimants (though this would likely require a legislative mandate to change current law). Keep in mind that disability benefits paid to claimants who participate in a BWC approved rehab program are NOT charged to the employer;
    • Transitional Duty Discounts;
    • Discounts if your organization has never had a lapse in BWC coverage;
    • A “Go Green” discount for paying premiums online, instead of by mail.

More to come as the BWC Board of Directors continues to meet and fine tune these possible options.

EEOC Reports Record Number Of Discrimination Charges

David Pierce  by David Pierce  

In November 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its statistics for fiscal year 2011, which ended in September 2011. The EEOC reported that more charges were filed in this fiscal year (99,947) than in any other year in the agency’s 46-year history. Additionally, EEOC administrative enforcement actions resulted in record monetary awards (over $364.6 million) for those alleging workplace discrimination against their employers. All of this comes at a time when the EEOC has become more efficient at handling its charges. In spite of the record number of charges, about 10% fewer charges remain pending for this year than were pending at this time last year. In spite of the nation’s budgetary issues, funding during the past two years has been increased for the EEOC. Per EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien, the aforementioned numbers demonstrate what happens when the agency is “given resources to enforce the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination.” In light of the agency’s increased activity and resources, employers are cautioned to exam their EEO policies and procedures to make sure they are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.