AUTHOR - Ryan Golden | PUBLISHED - Feb. 11, 2021

Organizations have the opportunity to re-examine several aspects of their plans and educate employees about their health, sources told HR Dive.

Employers have long sought programs and practices that can help workers be proactive in managing their health. But a pandemic disrupted that work in many ways.

COVID-19's spread — a health risk by itself — coincided with a decline in healthcare participation. In one study conducted by healthcare navigation company Castlight Health, researchers found "dramatic reductions" in the use of healthcare during the first two months of the pandemic. Musculoskeletal surgery, for example, declined about 47% compared to the same time frame in 2019, while MRIs declined 45%.

Some of the biggest plummets came at the expense of preventative care, a broad category that can include check-ups, immunizations, screenings and other procedures undertaken for disease prevention purposes. According to data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI), submitted health claims for mammograms and pap smears were down nearly 80% in April 2020 year-over-year, and those for colonoscopies were down "almost 90%" in mid-April 2020 year-over-year.

Percentage change of selected preventative care procedures during COVID-19 pandemic

Preventative care type	YOY trend (as of April 14, 2020)	YOY trend (as of Oct 1. 2020)
Colonoscopies	-88%	-13%
Childhood vaccinations (aggregate)	-57%	-8%
Mammograms	-76%	-11%
Pap Smears	-77%	+19%

SOURCE: Health Care Cost Institute

Those declines reversed by fall, HCCI data show, but preventative care procedures generally have not returned to pre-pandemic levels, said Daniel Kurowski, senior researcher at HCCI. While Kurowski noted that there are limitations to the type of claim-based analysis used by HCCI in its study, he confirmed that the organization's data suggest the U.S. healthcare system has not made up for the loss of services that occurred since the pandemic's onset.

What can employers derive from these findings? Healthcare industry sources who spoke to HR Dive expressed some concern that deferred care could have an impact on disease prevention down the line, but the complete picture is far from clear. What's more, the scramble to respond to such challenges could yield some positive lessons.

'Everything stopped'

Dr. Mark Cunningham-Hill remembers the initial months of the pandemic well. As the medical director for the Northeast Business Group on Health, a regional coalition of employers and healthcare stakeholders, Cunningham-Hill observed closures on a wide scale. "Everything stopped for a month or two," he told HR Dive, "and gradually, telemedicine started coming online."

An executive at insurer Aetna shared a similar view. "We have seen declines in every aspect of care within our populations, specifically within preventative services," said Julie Bietsch, the company's senior vice president, clinical operations. But by August, Aetna began to see preventative care utilization trends rebound to the point that, by October 2020, those trends were close to 2019 levels, Bietsch noted.

Virtual care has helped to fill in some of the gaps caused by COVID-19 and may even have helped to offset some declines in care utilization, said Magda Rusinowski, vice president of Business Group on Health. While such care was initially delivered via providers that specifically focus on virtual care, the format "has emerged as a way to see your brick-and-mortar provider" as well, Rusinowski said.

Cunningham-Hill said telehealth and similar technologies can allow care providers to review patients' health and direct them to book appointments for in-person procedures, such as a mammogram, when available. For other specialties, such as mental healthcare, telehealth "possibly works better" than it did even before the pandemic, he added.

Even for procedures such as colonoscopies that typically require an in-person visit, alternatives are available. The pandemic has caused providers and other members of the healthcare system to "think outside the box" when it comes to preventative care, Bietsch said. Examples include HbA1c test kits that can evaluate blood glucose levels and Cologuard, a Food and Drug Administration-approved, at-home testing kit that helps screen for colon cancer.

'A matter of enormous concern'

Still, the impact of deferred care may be a puzzling development for employers, one with potentially devastating consequences for some patients.

Early detection of serious conditions is a primary concern. In a June 2020 article published in Science Magazine, Norman E. Sharpless, director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, described a statistical model for excess deaths from colorectal and breast cancers between 2020 to 2030. Due to delayed diagnosis and care issues caused by COVID-19, Sharpless said the model suggests almost 10,000 excess deaths from both types of cancer over the next decade, or about a 1% increase.

"This analysis is conservative," Sharpless wrote, "as it does not consider other cancer types, it does not account for the additional nonlethal morbidity from upstaging, and it assumes a moderate disruption in care that completely resolves after 6 months. It also does not account for regional variations in the response to the pandemic, and these effects may be less severe in parts of the country with shorter or less severe lockdowns."

And while declines for procedures such as colonoscopies and mammograms pose a challenge for health plans, another item — childhood vaccinations — can be just as worrisome, multiple sources told HR Dive. HCCI found that childhood immunization rates varied by type. Meningococcal and HPV vaccines saw year-over-year declines of 75% in mid-April 2020, while those for Rotavirus saw a 33% decline.

This area is "a matter of enormous concern" for employers, said Jeff Levin-Scherz, national co-leader of Willis Towers Watson's health management practice, because vaccinations save lives and prevent families from incurring substantial medical costs.

Childhood vaccinations have not only been impacted by closure of care centers, in which such vaccines are often given, but also by the closure of school systems, which often provide reminders to families about receiving vaccines, Bietsch said. Lack of access in certain geographic areas can also play a role in vaccine disparities, she added.

There also are concerns about the management of chronic conditions such as diabetes and asthma. Bietsch said Aetna has messaged plan members after, for example, a trend of diabetic patients who would receive a lab test but not a foot or eye exam.

What employers can do

Providing coverage is the most important thing employers can do to encourage employees to use preventative care, Levin-Scherz said; "No one should miss preventative care because they didn't think it was covered." Employers have several opportunities to improve their healthcare offerings as a result of the pandemic, including the chance to work closely with health plans that are proactive about reminding employees about the importance of such care, he added.

COVID-19 also may prompt healthcare providers, payers and even employers to re-examine what constitutes high-value or low-value care, Cunningham-Hill said. He referred specifically to procedures such as colonoscopies that are performed on patients over the age of 75, as well as false positives that lead to lengthy investigations that do not turn up problems. But there are also items proven to be valuable, such as asthma medications and diabetes management tools. "How do we come out of this doing more of the high-value stuff?," Cunningham-Hill said.

That points to another actionable item for employers: access. It is one thing to provide coverage for a given form of preventative care, but associated copays may discourage workers from actually taking part in that care. Even if the plan provides 80% coverage for a procedure with a $25 copay for the worker, "that copay is a fortune for someone earning $25,000 a year," Cunningham-Hill said. Such examples point to the need for greater healthcare equity, he added.

Employees may have alternatives when it comes to things like ensuring their children have access to important vaccinations. "It doesn't have to be a physician's office," Bietsch said, adding that pharmacies and other qualified health centers can provide such vaccines.

Communication also emerged as a common theme in conversations with sources. Kurowski said his takeaway for employers is to encourage employees to take control of their health and remind them of the access that employers provide to chronic care management, preventative care and even fringe wellness programs, like fitness benefits.

This can be particularly important for workers with chronic conditions. "You can't tell people enough about looking at their diabetes in different ways," Bietsch said. Plans and employers might decide to mix up communications around preventative health by sharing stories about how a plan member managed their diabetes successfully, she noted. Rusinowski said organizational leaders, especially those whom employees trust, can also play a part in communications strategy.

Healthcare industry observers have noted for months that COVID-19 spurred the growth of the virtual healthcare space, but that growth also could yield positive results for preventative care. Telehealth can allow care providers to monitor patient health, recommend follow-ups and help patients manage their chronic conditions. "Many of the telemedicine companies have been doing substantially more primary care," Levin-Scherz said. "As they do that, they become educated on preventative care and they become advocates of preventative care."

There are still hurdles to the adoption of telehealth and similar services and, importantly, not all visits can be replaced by virtual care. But Rusinowski sees the space "not as a replacement, but as a way to enhance" care specialties and improve the overall patient experience.

As employers seek to communicate to employees the importance of continuing their care routines and seeking preventative care, businesses should not focus solely on costs. "I just want to make sure that when we talk about it, we emphasize the well-being component and the desire to create an environment where employees can have the best health outcomes possible," Rusinowski said. "The pandemic has shown us more than anything else that you can't have a productive workforce where health is an issue, but this is not anything new for [employers]."

Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled Rusinowski's name. HR Dive regrets the error.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: HR Dive

https://www.hrdive.com/news/workers-skipped-preventative-healthcare-in-2020-how-should-employers-respo/594908/

***** 

BY MARK MCGRAW, WORLDATWORK | FEBRUARY 9, 2021

There’s a segment of the population that doesn’t believe in the medical advantages of vaccinations.

A 2019 Gallup survey, for instance, found that 11% of 1,025 American adults actually consider vaccines to be more dangerous than the diseases they’re intended to prevent.

Given the distaste that some have for vaccines in general, it stands to reason that a fair number of individuals have no intention of receiving one of the vaccines now available to help fend off COVID-19. One recent poll sees more than a quarter of U.S. respondents saying they definitely or probably won’t get vaccinated against the coronavirus.

Many of the American employees who do receive COVID vaccinations will do so via their employer-sponsored insurance plans. And, while companies can — with some exceptions — require employees to receive a coronavirus vaccination, most won’t.

That’s according to an ongoing Mercer survey, which finds 78% of more than 350 employers saying their organization has no plans to mandate the vaccine for employees. (Just 13% said their company is considering mandatory vaccinations at this point.)

Still, employee skepticism toward the coronavirus vaccine creates a challenge for employers with designs on providing vaccines for their workforce. The Mercer poll also looks at the likelihood of companies creating rewards to encourage COVID vaccine uptake among employees who are hesitant about being vaccinated.

Many companies remain unsure as to whether they will provide incentives in hopes of motivating this group of workers to get the vaccine, according to Mercer’s data. Roughly 44% of respondents have already decided against it, but a nearly identical number (46%) said their organization is still thinking and talking it through.

Most of these discussions center around the possibility of offering incentives like cash, gift cards and/or paid time off, Mercer finds, with the still-open survey finding nearly half of employers (47%) indicating they will provide employees with additional paid time off to go get the vaccine. 

Companies that do opt to proceed with such vaccination incentives will have a host of factors to weigh, said Wade Symons, leader of Mercer’s regulatory resource group.

“There are different considerations, depending on whether the employer will be involved in the vaccine administration or simply encouraging employees to seek vaccinations in their communities,” said Symons.

Symons points out that the EEOC’s updated guidance clarifies that the administration of a vaccine alone does not constitute a medical examination, but the questions an employee must answer before receiving the vaccine “will almost certainly qualify as a disability-related inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).”

As such, ADA restrictions would apply, even if the employer has contracted with a third party to deliver the vaccine.

“In connection with an incentive program, that means the incentive likely must be limited in order for it to be considered a ‘voluntary’ program.”

That said, simply encouraging employees to get vaccinated through, say, a pharmacy chain or county health department would not carry ADA implications, said Symons.

“Limits should not apply, since the pre-vaccination medical questions do not tie back to the employer. And, per the EEOC, requiring proof of vaccination is not a medical inquiry under the ADA. Thus, the employer would be free to ask for such proof in order to provide the applicable incentive.”

Companies providing vaccination incentives should also be careful to provide accommodations due to disability or religious objections, he added.

“The obligation to accommodate would only be implicated in situations where an employee is unable to get the vaccine due to a disability or an objection based on a sincere religious belief, and then, only absent undue hardship to the employer.”

When an accommodation is required, the employer would need to consider alternatives to getting the vaccine, such as periodic COVID testing or remote work options, so the employee with the religious- or disability-related objection can still earn the incentive, said Symons.

“As far as ADA limitations on vaccines, we don’t currently have guidance as to what amount of incentive would exceed the threshold to make vaccination ‘involuntary’ for those employers involved with vaccine administration,” he continued.

“Rules which permitted incentives of up to 30% of the employee-only medical plan premium amount were struck down by the courts several years ago and regulations to replace them have yet to be formally proposed.”

For employees without strong feelings one way or the other, incentives might ultimately be “the nudge they need to make the effort to get vaccinated,” said David Zieg, MD, clinical services leader at Mercer.

On the other hand, such rewards could lead some workers to feel the organization is “coercing them into accepting the vaccine, especially if they are experiencing financial challenges and view the money being offered as substantial,” he added.

“The good news is that the majority of the population is willing to get vaccinated, which means that incentives are not targeted to these people and will not change their behavior.”

Then there are employees for whom no amount of encouragement, financial or otherwise, will likely make much difference, said Zeig.

“Widespread disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines has fostered confusion and distrust. It seems unlikely that incentives will affect the behavior of people who are strongly opposed to taking the vaccine.

That said, it remains unclear whether incentives “will meaningfully improve uptake among those who are hesitant rather than opposed,” said Zeig. “Many will wait to be vaccinated until they feel comfortable, which will take time and experience, not money.”

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source; WorldatWork 

https://www.worldatwork.org/workspan/articles/thinking-through-covid-vaccine-incentives

Industry sources have recommended that participants adopt a savings hierarchy for retirement plan and health savings account contributions.

Reported by REBECCA MOORE

More than half (56%) of 401(k) participants reduced their retirement plan contributions in the first year that they made health savings account (HSA) contributions, according to a study conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

In general, as income increases, the percentage of participants reducing their deferrals to their 401(k) increases in the first year that they made HSA contributions. There was also a spike among low-income workers in the percentage making a reduction.

EBRI found that the “crowding out” of HSA savings on retirement savings was modest at the median: The median dollar reduction in participant 401(k) contributions in the first year of HSA contributions was $34. However, deferral rates decreased by $5,127 at the 10th percentile.

Higher HSA contributions were associated with lower 401(k) contributions. While at the median, 401(k) contributions fell $315 among HSA participants allocating more than $4,350, among HSA participants committing $1,000 or less, median 401(k) contributions fell only $8.

“Not only does the amount of 401(k) contributions decrease as HSA contribution levels increase, the higher the 401(k) contribution, the greater the reduction in 401(k) contribution among those who contributed to their HSA for the first time,” says Paul Fronstin, director of the health research and education program at EBRI and coauthor of the report.

Specifically, 401(k) contributions fell $482 in the year following initial HSA deferrals among those allocating more than 10% of their income in the year prior to the HSA contribution. They fell $49 among those contributing 6% to 10% of their income. At the median, 401(k) deferrals were essentially unaffected among participants contributing 6% or less of their income.

The results of the EBRI survey highlight the need for retirement plan participants to establish a savings hierarchy. During the 2018 PLANSPONSOR HSA Conference, Jack Towarnicky, executive director of the Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA), advocated for saving enough to get the employer match in both the retirement plan and the HSA, if the HSA offers an employer match and if the participant can afford it. Otherwise, Towarnicky said the common-sense approach is to contribute an initial amount to fund the HSA and contribute up to the full match in the 401(k). Participants can then alternate contributions between the two vehicles.

More recently, Brian Hanna, a partner and executive vice president at Everhart Advisors, told PLANSPONSOR, “What’s becoming more accepted as a best practice is that you should save into your qualified employer plan up to the match level first. Then you should save into your HSA up to the maximum annual contribution—and not spend your HSA on an annualized basis but use it as a retirement savings vehicle. Then, if you have any money available for savings, you can go back to the 401(k) and make a higher contribution.”

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: PLANSPONSOR

https://www.plansponsor.com/participants-reducing-401k-contributions-contribute-hsas/

ByCatherine Thorbecke | February 2, 2021

Google to pay $3.8 million over alleged discrimination against women, Asians

As part of the resolution, the tech giant denies wrongdoing.

Google has agreed to pay more than $3.8 million, including nearly $2.6 million in back pay, to settle allegations of "systemic" pay and hiring discrimination that disadvantaged women and Asian workers.

The payments will go to more than 5,500 current employees and job applicants from the company's California and Washington state offices, the Department of Labor announced in a statement Monday evening.

As part of the resolution, Google denies any violations or noncompliance with any laws or regulations.

Of that sum, more than $1.3 million will go toward back pay, with interest, to 2,565 female employees in engineering positions who were allegedly subjected to pay discrimination, while over $1.2 million will be set aside for 1,757 women and 1,219 Asian applicants for software engineering positions who weren't hired.

The Department of Labor said its Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs identified pay disparities affecting female employees in software engineering positions at Google offices in Mountain View, California, as well as in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington, during a routine compliance evaluation.

"Pay discrimination remains a systemic problem," Jenny Yang, programs director at the OFCCP, said in a statement. "Employers must conduct regular pay equity audits to ensure that their compensation systems promote equal opportunity."

The agency said it also found hiring rate differences that disadvantaged women and Asian applicants for software engineering positions at Google outposts in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California, as well as in Kirkland.

In addition to the back pay, the tech company will also allocate a reserve of $1.25 million for pay-equity adjustments over the next five years for employees in engineering positions in Mountain View, Kirkland and New York City -- where approximately 50% of Google's engineers work.

A Google spokesperson told ABC News in a statement the company is pleased to have resolved the matter and that the company has conducted an internal analysis of pay equity for the last eight years.

"We believe everyone should be paid based upon the work they do, not who they are, and invest heavily to make our hiring and compensation processes fair and unbiased," the spokesperson said. "We're pleased to have resolved this matter related to allegations from the 2014-2017 audits and remain committed to diversity and equity and to supporting our people in a way that allows them to do their best work."

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/google-pay-38-million-alleged-discrimination-women-asians/story?id=75633080

February 2, 2021

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has announced the immediate termination of its Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. The PAID program began in March 2018 as a pilot program to allow employers an alternative method to rectify overtime and minimum wage violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) without the worry of an extended statute of limitations, penalties, and threat of private litigation or attorneys’ fees. The Wage Hour Division has repeatedly touted the program’s success. Although after a successful trial period the program was extended indefinitely in October 2018, the DOL abruptly ended the self-reporting program on January 29, 2021.  

In its press release announcing the end of the program, the DOL indicated that the resources and outreach provided by the Wage and Hour Division to employers are sufficient to help employers comply with the FLSA “without relieving them of their legal obligations.”

Under the PAID program, employers were able to self-report a wage violation, submit a calculation of back wages to the DOL, and enter into an agreement to pay 100% of back wages owed over a two-year period. In turn, the DOL would supervise and approve the settlement permitting employees to issue a valid release of the claim, limited to the reported issue. The DOL agreed not to seek a third year of back wages, liquidated damages, or civil money penalties, and kept the identity of reporting employers confidential, subject to FOIA requests. As an additional incentive for employers to participate in the PAID program, the DOL agreed not to investigate the underlying merits of the issue that the employer self-reported; instead, its review was limited to the back wage calculations prepared by the employer for accuracy. 

Without the self-reporting PAID program, the only two options available to release FLSA claims are through a court-approved settlement or as a result of a DOL-initiated investigation. While the PAID program did not release any state law claims, it allowed for significant relief for employers to correct issues without the threat of additional litigation or negative publicity. It is not clear whether employers currently working with the DOL through the PAID program will be allowed the benefits of the program.

Even without the added benefits of the PAID program, employers should continue to be proactive to audit pay records and correct potential wage issues if identified.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: JD Supra

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dol-ends-payroll-audit-independent-8523810/

By WCCO-TVJanuary 25, 2021 at 11:48 am

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Target announced Monday that it’s giving $500 bonuses to more than 375,000 of its frontline team members working at stores across the country, including seasonal workers.

The Minneapolis-based retailer said the bonuses are the company’s fifth round of recognition for team members amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The company says the bonuses should be paid out by early next month.

Included in this round of bonuses are store directors, executive team leaders and salaried distribution center leaders, who will receive $1,000 to $2,000 bonuses.

In total, these bonuses will amount to a $200 million investment in workers, the company says.

Additionally, Target says that it’s extending COVID-19 benefits into 2021, such as paid leave for team members who test positive for the virus.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: CBS Minnesota

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/01/25/target-to-give-500-bonuses-to-frontline-team-members/

AUTHOR Katie Clarey | PUBLISHED: Jan. 21, 2021

Dive Brief:

• Federal courts saw fewer Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) filings for the fifth year in a row in 2020, according to Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Jan. 5 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report. Wage and hour litigation saw more class and collective actions certified than any other area of workplace law, however, with the rate of certification success increasing. 
• This trend is likely to "explode" in 2021 with the arrival of a more worker-friendly U.S. Department of Labor that is "apt to make supposed wage theft its enforcement priority and to shift its regulatory focus toward a plaintiff-friendly agenda."
• Work from home arrangements drove litigation in 2020 and will continue to do so in 2021, Seyfarth said. Specifically, claims will relate to subjects germane to telework, such as expense reimbursement and off-the-clock work.

Dive Insight:

Workplace class action lawsuits are the most common type of class actions, according to the results of the 2019 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey. The report, which gathered responses from general counsel or senior legal officers at 395 large companies, revealed that organizations spent a collective $2.46 billion in 2018 defending class actions. Labor and employment cases accounted for 26.1% of spending, Carlton Fields found, and companies reported that wage and hour matters were "their top concern in this category." In 2020, organizations shelled out nearly $295 million to settle wage and hour class action claims, according to Seyfarth.

Employers likely rejoiced when, in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that employers could require workers to arbitrate disputes individually, waiving their right to class or collective actions. Attorneys urged caution, however, and recommended employers refrain from widespread arbitration mandates, as arbitration can be expensive and create backlash, especially if claims contain allegations of sexual misconduct.

There has been some movement to hedge the freedom the decision granted employers. Lawmakers introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (FAIR Act) in 2019, calling forced arbitration "unfair, unjust and un-American." The bill would allow employees and consumers to choose arbitration at will. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill in September 2019, but the U.S. Senate has yet to vote on the legislation.

Even without the FAIR Act, employers will likely see more wage and hour collective actions in 2021, due to the incoming, employee-friendly administration, Seyfarth predicted. The Biden administration may focus on raising the federal minimum wage, one attorney previously told HR Dive.

Management-side attorneys identified another factor in wage and hour claims that Seyfarth called out as well: telework. The pandemic has forced many hourly workers to work from home — a rare occurrence in pre-pandemic times, Venable Partner Nicholas Reiter said. Such workers generally have fixed schedules that easily facilitate overtime pay; with many working from home, employees may not have the infrastructure to track hours worked as diligently as previously. "That could be a real risk," Reiter said.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: HR Dive

https://www.hrdive.com/news/seyfarth-flsa-class-actions-will-likely-explode-in-2021/593754/

By  Chris Mellor | January 7, 2021

Final approval has been granted to a Western Digital settlement of a class action lawsuit, which accused the company of underpaying female staff and discriminating against them in pay, promotions, and placement.

Western Digital will pay $7.75m – $5m to 1863 female employees, and most of the rest to their law firm. In addition, the company will undertake “sweeping programmatic measures to help eliminate gender disparities and foster equal employment opportunity going forward”.

The lawsuit was bought by Yunghui Chen, who  joined WD’s Audit Department in 2005 and resigned in September 2016, having been promoted to Internal Audit Manager in 2008.

She alleged that Western Digital “paid her $30,000 less than her male counterparts performing equal and substantially similar work and refused to promote her to Senior Manager, despite promoting similarly situated, less-qualified men.” 

Her class action lawsuit, filed in May 2019, stated: “Men dominate Defendants’ leadership and management. Upon information and belief, the overrepresentation of men in Defendants’ leadership is both the source and product of continuing systemic discrimination against female employees.”

Also, Western Digital’s “compensation, promotions, and placement policies and practices have resulted in and perpetuated longstanding, company-wide gender discrimination and sex-based disparities with respect to pay, promotions, and job placement.”

The company relies “on a tap-on-the shoulder promotion process that disparately impacts women and encourages the predominantly male management to engage in a pattern of disparate treatment. Rather than posting open positions, managers evaluate which, if any, of their reporting employees should be placed into them.”

Where the money goes

The $7.75m settlement will be disbursed to several groups of people;

• $4,811,667 goes to California-based female employees of WD and related companies at or below the senior management level after November 1, 2012, and also to female employees of WD elsewhere in the USA with similar posts since November 1, 2013,
• $2,583,333 at a maximum goes to class counsel in attorneys fees,
• $97,324 goes to them for for litigation costs,
• $180,000 at maximum to Chen for her litigation costs,
• $18,000 service award to Chen,
• $50,000 for Class Administrator’s fees and costs,
• $75,000 for PAGA costs.

Any remaining money goes to a couple of legal aid charities.

The 1,863 individual class action members (plaintiffs) and they will get $3,615 each on average. The precise amount will depend upon their employment duration and pay rate.

Interested parties with Pacer access can read the final settlement document or by looking up Chen v. Western Digital Corp., C.D. Cal., No. 8:19-cv-00909, final approval of class settlement 1/5/21.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: Blocks & Files

https://blocksandfiles.com/2021/01/07/western-digital-settles-sex-discrimination-class-action/

In 2021, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pay will vary by industry and region—and even by job within companies.

By Tamara Lytle | January 9, 2021

The coronavirus pandemic took employee compensation on a roller coaster ride in 2020. The year began with a tight labor market and rising wages followed suddenly by stay-at-home orders and massive job losses that upended the labor market. Companies had to adjust on the fly. Today, business leaders struggle to set 2021 pay levels absent certainty about when the economy will recover and how soon a vaccine for COVID-19 might become widely available. They are also considering the role of compensation in retaining top performers, who are more valuable than ever in this unstable environment.

Last spring, one-fourth of companies reduced pay (most of them temporarily) when the novel coronavirus shut down large swaths of the economy, according to research by Mercer. During those early months of 2020, as the pandemic was just beginning to be felt in the U.S. but not yet understood, companies weighed whether to stick with their compensation plans. Sixty-eight percent of them went ahead with merit pay increases and 79 percent paid out bonuses as planned, according to Mercer. Overall, the consultancy says, compensation rose about 3 percent in 2020—roughly the same as the increases seen in each of the past seven or eight years.

A survey report from Gallagher, however, found a lower average pay increase of 2.5 percent in 2020. And the benefits brokerage and advisory company projects a 2.1 percent increase for fiscal 2021.

But behind the averages, specific impacts varied.

Mixed Effects

In 2021, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pay will continue to vary by industry and region—and even by job within companies.

Company leaders expect to increase compensation in 2021 by between 2.6 percent and 3 percent, according to Mercer’s research. But industries will be affected unevenly, just as they were in 2020. Online retailers enjoyed record sales as homebound consumers avoided stores and opted for delivery, for example, while other sectors were seriously hurt by the economic downturn. Between September 2019 and September 2020, the U.S. economy lost a net of 9.6 million jobs (not including agricultural jobs). A disproportionate 8.6 million of those were service jobs, with 3.6 million in leisure and hospitality, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Some workers in hard-hit businesses realized less growth in their hourly wages than national averages, according to the BLS’s Current Employment Statistics. Between September 2019 and September 2020, average hourly wages in the leisure and hospitality industry rose just 15 cents to $14.78. By contrast, average hourly earnings for nonfarm workers in production and nonsupervisory roles rose from $23.70 to $24.79.

Going forward, the effects of the pandemic are impacting decisions about overall compensation strategies. Incentive plans at some companies that have benefited from the unusual circumstances of 2020 paid out above target levels despite the battered overall economy, says Gregg Passin, senior partner, Executive Solutions, at Mercer. Other companies will take years to recover and must decide whether to change incentive plan awards downward to reflect the new economic reality.

Companies everywhere are weighing the uncertainties of the economy against the need to keep pay levels up to retain top performers. There’s no right answer for all companies regarding pay, according to Mary Ann Sardone, partner, U.S. Talent Solutions leader, at Mercer. “Our advice is you have to look at your situation,” she says.

Tom Gimbel, CEO of LaSalle Network, a national staffing and recruiting firm based in Chicago, recommends ranking employees on ability and future potential. He maintains that the top quarter need to get increases in base pay or variable compensation so that they don’t get snapped up by competitors.

“If you want to retain your best people, you have to do it with your top quartile,” Gimbel says.

Contributing Factors

Despite high rates of unemployment brought on by the pandemic, some companies with front-line workers raised hourly rates to attract new hires. Target increased its minimum wage to $15 an hour in July and gave front-line workers a $200 bonus. Walmart bumped up pay for 165,000 workers.

As the virus raged and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S., many industries realized how critical their hourly workforces were for keeping the business—and the country’s economy—going.

While higher minimum wages and hazard pay were the answer for many companies, businesses in the health care industry were a notable exception, Sardone says. Leaders in that sector resisted hazard pay because nurses, doctors and other workers routinely faced job-related health threats before the pandemic.

“It’s a bit of a slippery slope when you add hazard pay to an already hazardous job,” Sardone notes.

The impact on compensation is not as widespread as in past recessions.

But while the coronavirus is still a risk for the 50 million front-line essential workers in the U.S., most companies dropped hazard pay by early summer as a new normal took hold, according to the Brookings Institution.

At the same time, some lower-level workers have seen their wages stagnate because massive layoffs have resulted in a larger supply of labor, Gimbel says.

He doesn’t expect pay to collapse for managers and executives, though, as happened during the 2001 and 2009 economic downturns. That’s because the impact on compensation is not as widespread as in past recessions. Many job seekers are willing to hold out for more money instead of taking a reduction in pay because they believe that the economy will return to normal after a COVID-19 vaccine becomes widely available. “The accountant isn’t competing against the barista who got laid off,” Gimbel says.

And, unlike in previous downturns, the federal government in 2020 decided to temporarily expand unemployment benefits and protect against evictions and home foreclosures. “You don’t see people willing to take jobs below their skills and pay grade,” Gimbel says.

Regional differences have also impacted compensation decisions. Dan Ryan, CEO of executive search firm Ryan Partners in Nashville, Tenn., has seen virtually no downward pressure on salaries in the Southeast, where his clients include architectural, engineering and construction firms.

“Depending on geography, in parts of the country where development is still on track, the pace of construction and design is still very busy,” Ryan says. “From a supply and demand standpoint, there is still inadequate supply [of labor].” When stay-at-home orders were imposed in the spring, many construction companies cut pay by 10 percent to 15 percent, Ryan says, but most have since restored rates to pre-pandemic levels.

'Companies may take a much more surgical approach this year to distributing salary increases.'

Mary Ann Sardone

Leaders at some companies are trying to determine what areas of the business need beefing up and what type of talent they need. With the economic upheaval leaving less money to go around for salary increases, companies must choose wisely where to dole out increases. The move to remote work, for instance, put a spotlight on the importance of IT workers who can enhance a company’s digital infrastructure. And marketing talent is valuable as companies adapt to new digital platforms.

“What COVID has shown is the need for digital transformation of … business and what parts of the business will enable that,” Sardone says. “Companies may take a much more surgical approach this year to distributing salary increases.”

Flexible Work Arrangements

Flexible work was a top priority for many employees prior to the pandemic. Then the public health crisis gave businesses a sudden chance to experiment with flexible work on a large scale when they were forced to send their employees home to work remotely. Even when it’s safe for everyone to be back in the office together, flexible work options and hours will become common. Before the pandemic, just 1 in 30 companies planned to let half or more of their employees work remotely, according to Mercer. Now, one-third of companies plan to allow that.

As employees shifted to remote work, some companies provided compensation for home office furniture or equipment. Google and Twitter, for instance, kicked in $1,000 stipends for remote employees.

Not all jobs can be done remotely. But it’s important to note that working in sweatpants from a home office isn’t the only type of flexible work arrangement available. Some jobs can provide flexible hours or allow split shifts or job sharing.

Gimbel sees a coming rift between blue-collar and white-collar workers if only the latter get flexibility. Workers who aren’t allowed to take advantage of flexible work arrangements are going to want more compensation to make up for it. Their message, Gimbel says, will be “Pay us more … or have everyone get their butts into the office. [If] I’m in Chicago in the cold and the marketing person is in Naples, Florida, is that fair?”

Location Matters

As companies realize that remote work can work, some are rethinking how they recruit and compensate people. If a job can be done outside the office, should it be benchmarked to the local talent market? Should it be pegged to the regional or national market? Why pay a Silicon Valley salary to an employee sitting in his home office in Montana?

When you say you don’t care where your workers work, it calls into question how you set pay, Sardone says.

Some companies are cutting the salaries of workers who switch to remote work permanently if they move to a lower-cost area.

In fact, the move to remote work could save companies money if they reclassify employees based on their remote status, Ryan says. He has already seen workers use the flexibility of remote work to move from high-tax states like Illinois and California to suburban and rural areas where they have more space, such as Texas and Florida. The ability to work remotely is high on many candidates’ priority lists when weighing jobs, even if it means less pay, because they can live in a lower-cost area. “It’s a trade-off people are willing to make,” Ryan says.

But companies may be better off reducing pay for future hires who live in less expensive areas instead of ruffling the feathers of current staff who work remotely, Sardone warns.

Businesses also need to be careful about how they handle executive compensation, especially if rank-and-file workers have taken a hit on pay. “Making executives whole or close to whole is a difficult story to tell” if other workers are suffering financially, Passin says.

Leaders need to think about how employees, regulators and customers will view cushy executive incentive payouts in the middle of hardship, Passin says. He is seeing a range of strategies among his clients. Some companies planned to limit executive incentive payouts at the end of 2020. But with the uncertain economy, executives could have a tough time meeting target goals in 2021, leaving them without incentives two years in a row.

That’s not what you want to tell an executive who you’re keen to retain, Passin says.

There’s no right or wrong answer on executive compensation, Gimbel says. He took no salary from February through September 2020 so he could pay his employees. And he understands that it’s important to workers to be able to choose where they perform their jobs.

“I’m seeing companies say more than before, ‘What is our culture? What do our employees mean to us?’ ”

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Source: Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-things-work/Pages/the-pandemic-alters-pay.aspx 

WRITTEN BY: Davis Wright Tremaine LLP [co-author: Crystal Miller-O'Brien] | January 4, 2021 

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), passed on March 18, 2020, temporarily mandated paid sick time and paid family leave for COVID-19-related issues, including for school and place of care closures, for certain employees and employers through December 31, 2020.

On December 21, 2020, Congress decided not to extend FFCRA paid time off obligations beyond 2020, and the latest COVID-19 stimulus bill (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021) became effective on December 27, 2020. Even though FFCRA paid leave benefits are no longer mandatory, employers can voluntarily continue providing paid leave benefits with the option of claiming the payroll tax credit, which has been extended through March 31, 2021. (See our prior advisories on U.S. Department of Labor guidance on the FFCRA here.)

Updates to the FFCRA

• Paid Sick Time: While employers are no longer required to provide FFCRA paid sick time to employees after December 31, 2020, employers who choose to provide FFCRA paid sick time benefits to employees continue to be eligible for a tax credit for the paid sick time through March 31, 2021. Employees who have exhausted available FFCRA paid sick time entitlements will not be entitled to additional paid sick time.

However, if employers opt to continue to provide FFCRA paid sick time, employees can use available sick time. Employers will not receive tax credits for benefits provided in excess of statutory limits.

• Paid Family Leave: While employers are no longer required to provide FFCRA paid family leave to employees after December 31, 2020, employers who choose to provide the FFCRA paid family leave benefits to employees continue to be eligible for a tax credit for the paid sick time through March 31, 2021. Employees who have exhausted available FFCRA paid family leave entitlements will not be entitled to additional paid family leave.

However, if employers opt to continue to provide FFCRA paid family leave time, employees can use available family leave. Employers will not receive tax credits for benefits provided in excess of statutory limits.

• No Retaliation: In order to remain eligible for the tax credit for providing employees with FFCRA paid sick time and family leave, employers also must not discharge, discipline, or in any way discriminate against an employee who seeks to take leave as provided for in the FFCRA. In addition, even if employers choose not extend the FFCRA benefits, retaliation against employees who used FFCRA benefit remains prohibited.

Employer Considerations

• Employers should consider whether to extend FFCRA paid sick time and family leave benefits to employees through March 31, 2021.
• Employers should also keep in mind there may be other state and local laws that provide similar benefits to employees and that some of these laws may also be changing.
• If employers continue to provide FFCRA benefits to employees, employers should obtain the requisite documentation for the FFCRA benefits to receive the tax credit. Please see our prior blog post here on FFCRA documentation.
• If employers are providing extended FFCRA benefits, they should continue to document leave use. Employers will not receive tax credits for benefits provided in excess of statutory limits.
• Employers should be mindful that the anti-retaliation provisions of the FFCRA are still applicable to past use of FFCRA benefits even if employers do not extend benefits until March 31, 2021. This means that employers cannot discharge, discipline or in any way discriminate against an employee who seeks to take leave or took leave as provided for in the FFCRA.
• Employers may also want to review their COVID-19 benefits and policies to ensure they are up to date.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 

Source: JD Supra, LLC 

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/temporary-ffcra-leave-requirements-end-9761496/