Attorney Samantha M. Amore, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School, has recently joined the Milwaukee law firm O’Neil Cannon She assists individuals, professionals, and business owners with estate and business planning as well as with probate and guardianship. Her prior experience preparing tax returns enables her to advise clients on gift, estate, and income tax matters.

O’Neil Cannon, founded in Milwaukee in 1973, is a full-service legal practice that primarily focuses on providing business law and civil litigation services to closely-held businesses and their owners. The firm represents corporations, institutions, and partnerships at all stages of the business life cycle, helping them start, grow and transition from one generation to the next.  We also assist business owners with their personal legal needs including tax and estate planning, family law and litigation—including personal injury litigation.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced an updated test for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), changing decades of precedent and significantly expanding the definition of who can be considered a joint-employer. A split Board decided it was necessary to “revisit and revise” the standard in order to keep up with “changing workplace conditions” in the current economic climate.

In the case at issue, Leadpoint Business Services, Inc. (Leadpoint), a staffing agency, provided workers to Browning-Ferris Industries of California (BFI) at a recycling plant owned by BFI to perform a variety of tasks. The temporary services agreement between the companies stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer and denied any joint-employer relationship. It also gave each company-specific aspects of the employment relationship that each was to control. The union wanted to include the Leadpoint employees in a bargaining unit it represented. A regional director determined that the staffing firm was their sole employer and that BFI, therefore, had no obligation to collectively bargain with Leadpoint employees. The union challenged that decision, and the NLRB deemed the two companies joint-employers under its new standard.

Under the previous standard, an entity needed not only to possess the authority to control the terms and conditions of an employee’s employment but had to actually exercise direct, immediate control to be considered an employer. The NLRB claimed that the requirement of direct, immediate control had been added to the joint-employer test over the past thirty years and was not based on prior case law, in common law, or in the text of the NLRA, and unnecessarily narrowed the definition of joint-employer under the NLRA.

The new standard states that two or more entities will be deemed joint-employers if they are both employers within the meaning of common law and “share or codetermine matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment.”  It is no longer necessary that joint-employers actually exercise authority and control over the terms and conditions of employment or that the control be exercised directly and immediately. Under the new standard, the fact that an entity simply has the ability, even if unused, to control the terms and conditions of employment or possesses indirect control through an intermediary will suffice to establish a joint-employer relationship. The NLRB will consider the existence, extent, and object of the control. The NLRB will broadly define ‘essential terms and conditions of employment’ and include such things as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, direction, wages, hours, scheduling, seniority, assignment of work, and determination of the manner and method of work performance.

This decision will have a major impact on employers, particularly those who use staffing or subcontracting agreements or contingent employee arrangements. Employers who had previously worked under the impression that their lack of direct control meant that they were not joint-employers could now be subjected to joint bargaining obligations and joint liability for unfair labor practices and breaches of collective bargaining agreements. If found to be a joint-employer, companies will need to collectively bargain with respect to the terms and conditions which it possesses the authority to control. The new standard also takes away much of the certainty with which businesses had interacted with each other.

Companies need to look at their business relationships and see who they could be considered joint-employers with, including vendors, service providers, and other entities with which the company may have indirect control over employees. This decision could also have an impact on how other federal agencies, such as OSHA and the EEOC, look at their joint-employer standards. Employers must keep an eye on any changes in order to avoid unexpected legal pitfalls.

Litigation against employers by the EEOC regarding the implementation of wellness programs is ongoing in federal court, but no instructive decisions have been issued by the courts. Employers wishing to implement a wellness program but stay out of litigation may feel like they have little guidance on the issue, but there are some instructions out there on how to avoid, at the very least, disability discrimination lawsuits brought by the EEOC.

In April 2015, the EEOC published proposed interpretive guidance on how employers can run wellness programs without running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC’s guidance is an attempt to balance the ADA’s goal of limiting employer access to medical information and the Affordable Care Act’s goal promoting wellness programs. The proposed rule does not touch on how wellness programs may be affected by any other laws prohibiting discrimination, such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

As a brief review, the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and restricts the medical information employers may obtain from employees and applicants. Wellness programs are generally programs and activities that promote a healthier lifestyle or prevent disease, which in turn attempts to improve employee health and reduce healthcare costs. Wellness programs may also incorporate health risk assessments and biometric screenings that measure an employee’s health risk factors. Incentives are usually offered for either participation (participatory wellness programs) or for achieving certain health goals (health-contingent wellness programs). Incentives are both financial and in-kind incentives, such as time-off awards, prizes, and other items of value. These wellness programs, however, must comply with the ADA, among other employment laws.

The focus of the EEOC’s attack upon employers’ wellness programs has been on whether such programs are voluntary. The ADA generally restricts employers from obtaining medical information from employees through disability-related inquiries or medical examinations. However, the ADA and GINA do permit employers to conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program. Voluntary is defined as neither requiring participation or penalizing employees who do not participate. The main effect of the EEOC’s proposed regulations is the extent to which incentives affect the voluntary nature of wellness programs.

In its guidance, the EEOC has decided that it will allow certain incentives related to wellness programs, while limiting others to prevent economic coercion that could render the program involuntary. This can be achieved, according to the proposed rule, by allowing an employer to offer incentives up to a maximum of 30% of the total cost of employee-only coverage to promote participation. Under the proposed rule, employers are not allowed to require participation or deny coverage to or take an adverse employment action against any employee who does not participate. Employers would be further required to provide a notice that clearly explains what medical information will be obtained, who will receive the medical information, how the medical information will be used, the restrictions on its disclosure, and the methods the covered entity will employ to prevent improper disclosure of the medical information. The proposed rule also allows disclosure of medical information obtained by the wellness program to employers only in aggregate form, except as needed to administer an employer’s health plan.

Finally, wellness programs must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities so that such employees have the ability to participate in wellness programs and earn the incentives offered by the employer. This is in line with the employer’s duty to accommodate under the ADA.

Despite the EEOC’s guidance, there remain unanswered questions. For example, the incentive language allows for up to 30% of the cost of employee-only coverage, but there is no guidance on whether incentives can be offered to encourage other family members who are covered under the insurance to participate in wellness programs. It is also expected that separate guidance on how GINA and wellness programs can coexist will be forthcoming.

Although the notice and comment period on the proposed rule has ended, the final rule is not likely to be issued until the fall. Employers should keep apprised of this rule making to make sure that their wellness programs do not find the attention of the EEOC.

O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing S.C. is pleased to announce that Attorney Dean Laing was recently selected as the 2016 “Lawyer of the Year” for Product Liability Litigation–Defendants in the Milwaukee area. This is the second year that Best Lawyers has recognized Attorney Laing as the “Lawyer of the Year.” In 2012, he was honored as Milwaukee’s Personal Injury Litigation “Lawyer of the Year.”

Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making this accolade particularly significant. These lawyers are selected based on particularly impressive voting averages received during the peer-review assessments.

Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, their professionalism, and their integrity.

In addition to the Lawyer of the Year award, Attorney Laing was also listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2016 in Commercial Litigation and Personal Injury Litigation–Plaintiffs.

Since the list was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence.

• James G. DeJong – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
• Seth E. Dizard – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation-Bankruptcy
• Peter J. Faust – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
• John G. Gehringer – Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Corporate Law, Real Estate Law
• Dennis W. Hollman –  Corporate Law, Trusts and Estates
• Grant C. Killoran – Litigation-Health Care
• Dean P. Laing – Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation-Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation-Defendants
• Gregory W. Lyons – Commercial Litigation, Litigation-Insurance
• Gregory S. Mager – Family Law
• Patrick G. McBride – Commercial Litigation
• Thomas A. Merkle – Family Law
• Steven J. Slawinski – Construction Law

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey. Over 52,000 leading attorneys cast more than 5.5 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”

• “Will My Adult Child With Autism Live Independently? Estate Planning for Families of Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorders”
• “Student Loans: Recent Federal Warning Shots to Financial Institutions”
• Tax and Wealth Advisor™ Alert: “The Seven Deadly Sins of Estate Planning”
• Employment LawScene™ Alert: “Supreme Court Decides Religious Accommodation Case”
• Publication Watch: Inside Counsel, “Anticipating and Managing Wage and Hour Pitfalls”
• Welcome: John M. Calewarts
• Pleased to Announce:
  • Dean Laing and Greg Lyons Recognized by the NADC
• Upcoming Events:
  • Hot Topics for Small Firms and Solo Practitioners

Individuals who own Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS), depending on when the corporation was formed, may have the ability to sell the stock without paying tax.

The IRS may very soon have another arrow in its quiver to attack valuation discounts on transfers of equity interests to family members. For those clients who have a plan that utilizes discounted giving, it is critical to have these plans examined by an estate planning expert and perhaps fully executed as soon as possible.

Based upon statements from various IRS and Treasury officials at recent conferences, it is likely that the Treasury Department will be issuing regulations under Code section 2704 that either eliminate or severely limit the use of discounts in valuing equity interests transferred between family members. The regulations under Code section 2704 currently address restrictions on liquidation. However, section 2704 also provides: “The Secretary may by regulations provide that other restrictions shall be disregarded in determining the value of the transfer of any interest in a corporation or partnership to a member of the transferor’s family if such restriction has the effect of reducing the value of the transferred interest for purposes of this subtitle but does not ultimately reduce the value of such interest to the transferee.”

What is interesting is that while this language seems broad enough to empower the Treasury to address (and eliminate) valuation discounts of any type with intra-family transfers, the legislative history to Code section 2704 would indicate otherwise. Specifically, the legislative history provides that “the bill does not affect minority discounts or other discounts available under present law.” Without getting into an in-depth dissertation on administrative authority, regulations that are in contravention of legislative history are subject to taxpayer attack.

The bottom line is that it is easier to avoid an IRS fight than to engage in one. Therefore, for clients that are relying on discounted giving, the time to act is now.

An investors group that includes the owner of three area golf courses has purchased the former Lac La Bell Country Club near Oconomowoc for $1.3 million.

The golf course was sold to the group by receiver Seth Dizard on behalf of First Bank Financial Centre, which took it back from the previous owner in a foreclosure action.The 18-hole, 140-acre golf course is located at W389 N6996 Pennsylvania St. in the Village of Lac La Belle.

(Excerpted from BizTimes.com)  Read full article here.

Today, July 15, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a memo regarding the classification of workers as either employees or independent contractors, which stated that most workers qualify as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL noted that the FLSA has an expansive definition of employment and that workers who are misclassified may miss out on many protections that they should be given, including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment compensation, and workers’ compensation.

Under the FLSA, a worker is an independent contractor if he is genuinely in business for himself; if a worker is economically dependent on the employer, however, the worker is an employee. To determine if the worker is economically dependent on the employer, the DOL looks at the six-factor economic realities test, which must be applied consistently with the broad scope of the FLSA. These factors are 1) the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; 2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill; 3) the extent of the relative investments of the employer and the worker; 4) whether the work performed requires special skills and initiative; 5) the permanency of the relationship; and 6) the degree of control exercised or retained by the employer. None of the six-factors is determinative; instead, the DOL states that they are indicators of the broader concept of economic dependence, which is the ultimate determination. Importantly, neither an employee’s job title or an agreement between the worker and the employer factor into the analysis of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. It is the reality of the working relationship that is determinative of an individual’s employee or independent contractor status.

The DOL’s conclusion is that most workers are employees under the FLSA and are thus entitled to all of the protections afforded employees. Therefore, employers need to be proactive and regularly revisit and reassess their use and classification of independent contractors to avoid liability for misclassification. If an individual is being treated like an employee, he or she needs to be classified as an employee. Employers who do otherwise are likely to find themselves facing litigation.