Recent Hot Topic Posts on PSMIN.com

E-Verify Efficacy Questioned (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 8/24/2009 10:27:23 AM MST

Homeland Security and E-Verify (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 8/11/2009 10:22:19 AM MST

Homeland Security to Drop No-Match Rules, Support E-Verify

7/8/2009

By Bill Leonard

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced on July 8, 2009, that the Obama administration intends to rescind regulations and procedures for employers that receive employee �no-match� letters from the Social Security Administration. At the same time, Napolitano reasserted the administration's support of a regulation that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify�the electronic employment verification system operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Napolitano said that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will soon propose a regulation to rescind the no-match rules, which were promulgated in 2007 during the administration of President George W. Bush. A federal court issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the no-match rules shortly after they were published.

One day after Napolitano's announcement, the Senate moved to block the DHS from rescinding the controversial no-match rules by approving an amendment that prohibits using federal funds to withdraw the regulation. The amendment was attached to the DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 2892), which passed the Senate late on July 9, 2009.

Observers say that the DHS decision to rescind the no-match rules and to push for implementing the federal contractor regulation reflects a new immigration enforcement approach to target employers who hire illegal immigrants rather than individual employees who don't have the right to work in the United States.

�E-Verify is a smart, simple and effective tool that reflects our continued commitment to working with employers to maintain a legal workforce,� said Napolitano in a written statement. �Requiring those who seek federal contracts to use this system will create a more reliable and legal workforce. The rule complements our department's continued efforts to strengthen immigration law enforcement and protect critical employment opportunities.�

The effective date for E-Verify contractor regulation has been delayed several times, with the rules now set to take effect on Sept. 8, 2009. However, a lawsuit to block implementation of the regulation must be resolved.

Several business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Society for Human Resource Management, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to block the new rules from taking effect.

The Bush administration promulgated the controversial regulations during the summer and fall of 2008. Under an executive order signed by President Bush in June 2008, approximately 170,000 federal contractors were supposed to begin using E-Verify in January 2009. The regulations, if implemented, would amend the government's acquisition processes by requiring federal contracts to stipulate that businesses must use E-Verify to determine if all new hires and existing employees performing work on federal contracts are authorized to work in the United States.

�We believe that we have a very strong and perfectly viable lawsuit that the federal government must respond to before the DHS can proceed with putting the regulation into effect,� Lawrence Z. Lorber, a partner with the Washington, D.C., office of Proskauer Rose, which is representing the employer groups, told SHRM Online on July 8, 2009.

Lorber said that Napolitano's announcement could signal the Obama administration's intention to resolve the lawsuit before the Sept. 8, 2009, effective date. The two sides in the lawsuit have set Aug. 16, 2009, as a deadline to respond to motions filed with the district court.

�DHS officials can certainly say that they support the implementation of the regulation and intend to proceed with the September 8 effective date,� Lorber said. �But the bottom line is there is litigation pending, and it must be resolved before the government can act to enforce the regulation.�

The E-Verify federal contractor rule also has become a hot topic on Capitol Hill. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on July 7, 2009, offered an amendment to the DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 2892) that would create a federal law requiring federal contractors use E-Verify. The White House asked that the proposal be tabled; however, the Senate rejected the White House's request and approved the Sessions amendment by a voice vote on July 8, 2009.

The full Senate approved the DHS spending bill with the Sessions amendment attached. A conference committee must now resolve the differences between the Senate version of the bill and the spending package approved by the House on June 24, 2009, which did not include provisions to block rescinding the no-match rule or to require federal contractors to use E-Verify.

Expired Docs No Longer Valid Under New I-9 (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 8/10/2009 12:04:41 PM MST

4/2/2009

By Allen Smith

Employers should have redone their training on the new Form I-9s that they provided earlier this year to be sure they are in compliance with the new Form I-9 that takes effect April 3, 2009, according to James King, a Seyfarth Shaw attorney in Atlanta.

Speaking at the American Staffing Association Staffing Law Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 31, King said that the main change to the new Form I-9 is that employers no longer can accept expired documents.

In U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Questions and Answers about the new I-9, the USCIS explained the reason for this change, saying that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security �wants to ensure that documents presented for use in the Form I-9 process must be valid and reliably establish both identity and employment authorization. Expired documents may not portray a valid status. They are also prone to tampering and fraudulent use. This change takes into account the limits placed on these documents by their issuing authorities. If a document does not contain an expiration date, such as a Social Security card, it is considered unexpired.�

The new Form I-9 also:

� Eliminates List A identity and employment authorization documentation Forms I-688, I-688A and I-688B (temporary resident cards and outdated employment authorization cards).

� Adds foreign passports containing certain machine-readable immigrant visas to List A.

� Adds to List A as evidence of identity and employment authorization valid passports for citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), along with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI.

� Makes technical updates.

King said that the Form I-9 that takes effect April 3 is the same as the form that was slated to take effect Feb. 2 before its effective date was delayed as a result of a White House directive asking all federal agencies to review regulations introduced by the Bush administration that had not taken effect before Jan. 20, 2009.

Laura Dye, director of human resources at United Service Cos. in Chicago, told SHRM Online that training on the new I-9 has been a challenge. Some managers are �terrified� to sign the document, afraid that they might have gotten something wrong, she said. Before training was provided, some managers didn't understand that the entire I-9 Form wasn't changed. �We have to point out where much remains the same.�

Dye added that one ongoing challenge with I-9 compliance is the different rules that apply to new hires coming from U.S. territories like Puerto Rico vs. new hires from other countries. For example, driver's licenses from Puerto Rico are acceptable List B documents, but driver's licenses from most foreign countries (except Canada) are not, which is a distinction that some employees do not realize.

Some employees are confused by the fact that Canadian new hires may present their driver's licenses to establish their identities, while new hires from other neighboring countries, such as Mexico, may not.

Regardless, King reminded conference attendees that as of April 3, expired driver's licenses and other expired documents no longer can be accepted to document employment eligibility and/or identity.

Employers that use the old form on or after April 3 may be subject to civil money penalties, the USCIS cautions.

Indiana's minimum wage to increase Friday July 24th (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 7/24/2009 12:33:38 PM MST

Indianapolis - The Indiana Department of Labor reminds employers and employees that the Indiana minimum wage will increase from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. The minimum wage increase is in conjunction with the federal minimum wage increase and is the third in a three-year series of increases.

Most Hoosier employers and employees are covered by the federal minimum wage, however those not covered under the federal law may still be covered by the Indiana Minimum Wage Law.

Employers of �tipped employees� must still pay employees at least $2.13 per hour in addition to their tips. If their tips combined with the employer's wage of $2.13 per hour do not add up to the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference.

For a free copy of the Indiana Minimum Wage poster, please visit: www.in.gov/dol.

State Unemployment Information (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 7/23/2009 9:00:36 AM MST

SHRM � Publications � HR Magazine � Editorial Content

Unemployment Insurance: How Much More Will It Cost?

Vol. 54 No. 7

Employers pay and pay for laid-off workers� unemployment benefits as the time for reform draws near

7/1/2009

By Susan J. Wells

The debate about how to pay the increasing cost of unemployment insurance is pitting employers against state and federal legislators. The situation has become acute: In a growing number of states, unemployment trust funds are in danger of running dry. The federal government passed emergency extensions for benefits not once but twice. And state administrators report problems handling the large numbers of claimants.

All of this heightens pressure on HR professionals who help their companies administer unemployment insurance (UI) for displaced employees.

Perhaps no other state reflects these tensions more than Michigan, recently shouldering the nation's highest unemployment rate of 12.9 percent in April.

That month, a coalition of employers representing 16 of Michigan's largest business groups called on state lawmakers to reject a one-time payment from the federal government in exchange for permanent expansion of the state's employer-financed unemployment system�and increased payroll taxes to pay for it. Analysis by the coalition estimates that costs, in the form of higher State Unemployment Tax Act and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) payroll taxes�some $69.7 million more annually�could exceed the one-time federal funding of $138.9 million in about two years. Legislators in Florida and Virginia declined the federal money this spring.

�Increasing payroll taxes isn't going to help turn the economic situation around,� protests Wendy Block, director of health policy and human resources for the 7,000-member Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Lansing. �We understand the need to help our state's unemployed. But the long-term tax increases on Michigan employers will damage our state's business climate. It puts an even further squeeze on employers in our state�akin to pouring gasoline on a fire.�

The Proposals

At issue�in Michigan and elsewhere�are strings within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan contains several changes to UI. Among them are reforms encouraging states to modernize UI by increasing benefits and expanding eligibility. Given that the cost of these changes is borne by the states and financed, of course, through unemployment taxes on employers, states were offered $7 billion to help fund these changes.

The payments are available to states that expand eligibility for UI benefits in specific ways. Each state receives one-third of its share when it uses the most recent wages to determine UI eligibility. That means analyzing the last four quarters worked, instead of the first four of the last five, as is usually done.

How much would it cost to fund such a change? The California Chamber of Commerce, for example, estimates that the state's now-struggling UI fund would pay out an additional $50 million to

$70 million per year if officials base their benefit computation on recent wages.

The state's UI fund heads toward multibillion-dollar deficits: In 2009-10, California expects to pay $29 billion in benefits, but will collect just $11 billion through payroll taxes. Counting the small positive balance at the end of 2008, the result will be a $6.2 billion 2009 shortfall and a $17.8 billion 2010 deficit, according to a May forecast by the state's Employment Development Department.

Each state gets the remaining two-thirds of its share when it adds two of the following four provisions:

Pay UI to individuals seeking only part-time work.
Ease qualifying requirements for workers who quit because of certain family responsibilities�such as workers who leave to escape domestic violence, to care for an ill family member or to follow a spouse who moves to a new job.
Extend benefits to workers in training who exhaust regular UI.
Increase weekly benefits for any dependents.

New Jersey was the first state to receive its entire share of the incentive payment: $206.8 million. Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Dakota's applications for the first third of their shares have been approved, and these states have received $200.3 million. Other state applications are pending for either their first third or entire shares.

The four changes above also cost employers more. How much more? In Michigan, legislators estimate that part-time extensions would cost $17.2 million a year; family leave, $15 million; job training, $52.5 million; and increasing the dependent allowance, $219 million.

Opposition to Change

Officials in some states say the federal money comes with too many strings.

They say the proposals will lead to higher unemployment taxes for businesses, and claim that the plans ignore the cornerstone objective of a UI system created to help individuals unemployed due to no fault of their own and actively seeking and available for full-time work.

�The modernization options are neither targeted nor temporary,� warns Doug Holmes, president of the UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers' Compensation, a Washington, D.C.-based business organization. �There are legitimate and serious administrative cost and policy issues associated with each of these provisions.

�Unemployment insurance is intended to be a temporary wage-replacement program. That is what it is funded for and what it should be designed to do.�

On the flip side, UI changes woven into the package can't come too soon for observers who say the nation's safety net shows age.

�The Recovery Act is, without a doubt, the single most significant piece of federal UI legislation in over 30 years,� says Ray Uhalde, senior advisor to the secretary of labor. �In addition to addressing the urgent needs brought on by the recession, the Recovery Act brings long-overdue recognition to the fact that, since the 1930s�when the UI program was created�the economy's changed, the workforce has changed, and the way we work has changed.�

Pursuing Effective Reform

Experts on UI demand an update, and their research may shape reforms.

Lori G. Kletzer, a professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Howard Rosen of the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., are authors of one of two reform proposals published in 2006 by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Their research proposes three broad policies to make UI responsive to today's economy and labor force. They propose:

Stronger federal guidelines to end disparities in eligibility and benefit rules among the states and extend coverage to a broader group of workers. They argue that variation in state programs has become a drawback of the existing UI system. It leads state officials to fear that creating more-generous programs will harm their abilities to compete for business. The interstate competition leads to a �race to the bottom� in benefits, Kletzer explains.
�Personal accounts� for self-employed workers, allowing them to contribute pretax money with matching federal grants of up to $200 a year, to cushion income drops or pay for job training and searches.
Wage insurance to offset declines in income for a period of years when workers switch to jobs paying less than they had been making.

In the second paper, Jeffrey R. Kling, Ph.D., Brookings' senior fellow and deputy director of economic studies, proposes a more radical overhaul: scrapping the existing UI and replacing it with personal accounts and loans to help people through short-term joblessness, and a large program of wage-loss insurance to help low- and moderate-income workers when forced to take new jobs at lower salaries.

By curbing government payments to those who experience only short-term joblessness, he says, this plan could operate with the same total amount of government support and business dollars as the current system but would provide more to the neediest.

Yet another view comes from Wayne Vroman, Ph.D., an economist with the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. He says �the biggest problem facing state UI programs is inadequate funding.�

In a February paper, he advocates raising the FUTA tax base above the present level of $7,000 per covered worker and indexing the amount by tying the federal tax base to growth in average wages. He recommends providing states with financial incentives to increase trust fund reserves, increasing access to UI benefits and adding federal dollars for UI administration.

Heidi Shierholz, Ph.D., a labor market economist with the Economic Policy Institute, calls UI an �automatic economic stabilizer.� She says extending and expanding UI is one of the most efficient forms of stimulus spending aside from food stamps. �It gets money to people who are the most likely to have depleted their savings, and who tend to have no choice but to quickly spend essentially every dollar they receive on necessities found in their local economy.�

Yet business advocates suggest an alternative solution to the UI system's shortfalls might be getting more aggressive about preventing fraud.

�We understand the need to help Michigan's unemployed. However, a better alternative to accepting this one-time revenue would be to look for cost-saving reforms within the current unemployment system,� says the Michigan Chamber's Block. For example, based on Department of Labor (DOL) data, Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency paid approximately

$98 million in 2007 to claimants who were working while fraudulently collecting UI.

�If the state of Michigan did a better job in detecting fraud, we could possibly return anywhere from $67 million to $100 million or more per year back to the state's unemployment system,� she says.

Nationally, the UI overpayment rate attributable to fraud climbed to 2.8 percent in 2008, up from 1.9 percent in 2001, according to the DOL.

As the nation continues to debate UI reform, a growing number of states' UI trust fund accounts are nearing insolvency. According to a March analysis of trust fund health by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, 14 states have federal trust fund loans and 18 other states' accounts now lie below federally suggested solvency levels�for a total of 32 states with less-than-favorable UI financing.

Will Reform Trump Timing?

UI represents the sixth-largest supplement to payroll that employers shell out, notes Urban Institute economist Vroman. �So, it's guaranteed that it will be an issue for some time to come.�

He predicts that officials in some states will wait to gauge UI modernization proposals, �making policy decisions once the economy plays out more.�

nvironment may well raise questions,� Vroman says. �However, the need for UI reform seems clear, and prospects for reform may be best in the current situation because the UI program is on everyone's radar.�

The author, a business journalist in the Washington, D.C., area, is a contributing editor of HR Magazine.

Health Cost Increases Seen Continuing at Double-Digit Rates (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 6/18/2009 12:02:44 PM MST

6/8/2009

By Stephen Miller (Society for Human Resource Management)

Costs for the most popular types of health care coverage are projected to increase at double-digit rates through the remainder of 2009 and into 2010, according to a recent national survey of U.S. insurers and administrators conducted by Buck Consultants, an ACS company.
�Although our survey reveals a slight decrease in cost trends since our prior study, there are signs that we're going into another cycle of high trends,� says Harvey Sobel, a Buck principal and consulting actuary who directed the survey. �Health insurers may increase costs in light of the continuing economic downturn and legislation such as mental health parity and the recent expansion of COBRA. They may also attempt to increase their prices prior to the implementation of national health care reform, including a new �public insurance option'.�
For its 20th National Health Care Trend Survey, Buck Consultants measured the projected average annual increase in employer-provided health care benefit costs, analyzing responses from more than 100 U.S. health insurers, health maintenance organizations and third-party administrators. Insurers providing medical cost trends for the survey cover a total of approximately 95 million people.
Costs for the most popular plans (see below) continue to increase by more than 10 percent but are slightly lower than the trends reported in Buck's previous survey, released in September 2008.

Wage and Hour Audits: Are You Compliant? (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 1/26/2009 12:43:30 PM MST
If a former employee were to complain to the Labor Commission for unpaid overtime wages, would you be able to show proof that the employee either did not work overtime or was paid for the overtime hours worked? Companies with just one employee are vulnerable to lawsuits for any Fair Labor Standards Act violation, and attorneys are anxious to take your money.

Pay your employees piece-rate?
For any employee that is not exempt from overtime, which most blue-collared employees being paid piece-rate are, time records must still be kept and employees must be paid overtime wages.

Pay your employees commissions?
For any employee that is not exempt from overtime, time records must still be kept and employees must be paid overtime wages. Outside sales persons qualify as exempt - but they are also on the road. Most inside sales people are NOT exempt.

Pay your employees a salary?
For any employee that is not exempt from overtime, including any executives whose actual job duties do not classify as an exempt employee, time records must still be kept and employees must be paid overtime wages. Providing fancy job titles does not mean the employee is exempt from overtime!

Federal law requires overtime to be calculated by a standard week that does not fluctuate, which is determined by the employer (Sun-Sat, Mon-Sun, etc), rather than by pay period. This can be confusing for employers who pay on a semi-monthly schedule, as weekly overtime calculations do not always begin on the first day of the pay period.

If you have questions about your pay calculations, need help determining overtime wages, or are unfamiliar with exempt v. non-exempt employee status, please contact one of our Human Resources Consultants at 800-967-5515.

ADA Amendments 2008 (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 1/26/2009 12:43:30 PM MST
Congress has approved the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which includes major changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The changes appear to be more favorable to employees and many Human Resources professionals speculate a substantial rise in ADA issues due to the passage of these amendments.

One major change is the elimination of considering mitigating measures when trying to determine whether or not a medical condition qualifies as a disability. Mitigating measures are methods to help control impairments and limit any perceived existence of a disability, stretching from medications and medical supplies to learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications. Formerly, any mitigating measure taken for a condition would not be considered a disability; that is no longer the case.

Another significant change is the expanded list of what are considered �major life activities.� Although not exclusive, this list ranges from performing manual tasks to thinking and working. Furthermore, the operation of major bodily functions has been added to the list of major life activities. For example, employees who have to take excessive restroom breaks during the workday may now be covered under the ADA.

The new interpretation of the ADA is to understand employers' intentions rather than focusing on whether or not some specific medical condition qualifies as a disability, thereby necessitating an accommodation. Rule of thumb: if an employee has some medical condition that is interfering with their normal course of work, assume the condition is covered under the ADA and consider accommodations first. Need help with ideas for reasonable accommodations? Contact one of PSM's Human Resources Consultants at 800-967-5515.

Federal Minimum Wage Increase (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 1/26/2009 12:40:36 PM MST
As the second part of the three-stage increase, the federal minimum wage will increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008. The first increase took place on July 24, 2007. The next and final increase will occur on July 24, 2009.

Most states have their own minimum wage law, which may differ from the federal minimum wage law. To ensure compliance, employers must adhere to the law that is most beneficial to the employee. The increase will generally have no effect on employees working in states whose minimum wage is currently at or above $6.55 per hour.

Some counties and/or cities within states may observe a higher minimum wage than the rest of the state in which they are located; sometimes this higher wage will apply only to businesses that are under contract to the local government itself. In other cases, the higher minimum wage will be enforced across the board.

With the federal minimum wage increase, your compliance posters will need to be updated. For additional information regarding compliance requirements, please contact one of PSM's Human Resources Consultants at 800-967-5515.

Recruitment Practices (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 1/26/2009 12:40:36 PM MST
While there is no way to guarantee a good hire, there are many recruitment practices that will help decrease the possibility of making a bad hire, found primarily in three main areas: the applicant pool, selection, and retention.

Applicant Pool: Finding the right applicants can be a frustrating, costly, and overwhelming task. Be sure you are making every effort possible for quality candidates to learn of your available positions. Use online recruitment tools and offer an employee referral incentive to internal staff. Attend job fairs that target your applicant market and treat rejected applicants with respect.

Selection: �Hire hard, manage easy.� The more time and effort spent selecting the right employee, the less amount of time spent managing him/her. Protect yourself from negligent hiring by doing background checks and drug test all potential candidates. Use assessment tests to better understand applicant and current employee talent. Provide succession planning to extend the survival of the company and always do reference checks, as history has a way of repeating itself.

Retention: Take the time to make new employees feel they are needed and important. First impressions of a company and/or the newly hired position may set the tone for the employee's career within your company. Introduce new employees to the entire staff and/or department, depending on the size of your company. Show them around the office; point out areas that may be culturally significant to the staff. Take time to train and orient new employees and provide resources necessary for them to succeed.

PSM understands the need to attract and retain quality employees, offering online recruitment tools, drug testing, assessment tests, background checks, and a detailed review of your recruitment process. For more information on the best recruitment practices for your company, please contact one of PSM's Human Resources Consultants at 800-967-5515.

PPE... Who's Picking Up the Tab? (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 1/26/2009 12:40:36 PM MST
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) ruling on employer-paid Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) goes into effect May 15, 2008. The new ruling does not alter when to require or what type of PPE to issue, but it does clarify what has to be paid for by the employer.

The new ruling reinforces OSHA's stance that employers are solely responsible for compliance with safety and health standards, and therefore the cost of PPE, with some newly clarified exceptions. Employers are not responsible to pay for:

PPE different than that provided at no cost to the employee;
Ordinary safety-toe footwear or prescription safety eyewear, as long as the employer is not restricting the use of such to their job only;
Everyday clothing, even if specific types of clothing are required (ie: long-sleeved shirts, long pants);
Ordinary hand tools; nor
An employee's own PPE if he/she voluntarily prefers to use his/her own. An employer may not require employees to provide their own PPE and are still required to ensure the adequacy of employee-owned PPE.

The new ruling also provides clarification for employers to reasonably charge employees who lose or intentionally damage PPE, as well as specific guidance on how to add structure and consistency when addressing common PPE problems. For more information on the new ruling, please contact one of PSM�s Human Resources Consultants at 800-967-5515.

Increasing Employer Risks: What Can You Do? (Professional Staff Management)

Message by Employer Solutions Group on 1/26/2009 12:45:18 PM MST
Recently the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that discrimination charges against private employers filed with the EEOC increased by 9% in 2007 - the biggest annual increase since the early 1990s. According to the most recent U.S. Justice Department statistics, civil rights violation claims have nearly doubled since 1990. In 2007, the EEOC resolved 72,442 private sector discrimination complaints and recovered approximately $345 million in compensation for those who had filed discrimination charges.

Feeling overwhelmed yet? Well, the potential risk to employers is actually much higher, considering these numbers do not include claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and other employment related torts. They also neglect to account for claims filed with administrative agencies and state courts, as well as disputes that are resolved through arbitration and mediation. Defense of these actions is extremely costly - not only in terms of legal fees, but in disruptions to business operations and adverse media attention. So what can you do?

Corporate risk managers are increasingly turning to employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) for protection from such huge liabilities. Most EPLI policies cover claims of wrongful termination of employment, workplace harassment, and discrimination, and some stretch further to cover a more comprehensive list of wrongful acts. Nearly all policies cover any amount for which the insured is legally obligated to pay, including defense and investigation costs, settlements, and judgments. Punitive, exemplary, and multiple damages (including liquidated damages) are now expressly covered under many EPLI policies if otherwise insurable.

At PSM, we advise companies to seriously consider EPLI to protect themselves from the wave of employment-related lawsuits. If you have questions or are interested in learning more about EPLI, please contact one of PSM's Human Resources Consultants at 800-967-5515.