A recent article in Bloomberg BNA's Health Insurance Report will be of interest to financial services employers: "ACA's Employer 'Pay or Play' Mandate Delayed - What Now for Employers?" by Frank C. Morris, Jr., and Adam C. Solander, colleagues of ours, based in Epstein Becker Green's Washington, DC, office.
Following is an excerpt:
The past few weeks have changed the way that most employers will prepare for the employer ‘‘shared responsibility'' provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Over the past year or so, employers have scrambled to understand their obligations with ...
A recent article in Bloomberg BNA's Health Insurance Report will be of interest to retail industry employers: "ACA's Employer 'Pay or Play' Mandate Delayed - What Now for Employers?" by Frank C. Morris, Jr., and Adam C. Solander, colleagues of ours, based in Epstein Becker Green's Washington, DC, office. Following is an excerpt:
The past few weeks have changed the way that most employers will prepare for the employer ‘‘shared responsibility'' provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Over the past year or so, employers have scrambled to understand their obligations with ...
A recent article in Bloomberg BNA's Health Insurance Report will be of interest to hospitality industry employers: "ACA's Employer 'Pay or Play' Mandate Delayed - What Now for Employers?" by Frank C. Morris, Jr., and Adam C. Solander, colleagues of ours, based in Epstein Becker Green's Washington, DC, office. Following is an excerpt:,,
The past few weeks have changed the way that most employers will prepare for the employer ‘‘shared responsibility'' provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Over the past year or so, employers have scrambled to understand their ...
Earlier we posted about the increase in domestic violence and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which was extended in February 2013, and expanded to provide coverage to both male and female victims of various types of domestic violence. (See “With Domestic Violence Increasing, What Should Employers Do?”) A growing number of states have followed the federal lead and undertaken steps to protect domestic violence victims. On July 17, 2013, New Jersey joined those states and enacted the New Jersey Security and Financial Empowerment Act
By Kara M. Maciel and Jordan B. Schwartz
A broadly worded settlement agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Lesley University extends the Americans with Disabilities Act’s protections to individuals with severe allergies. This new, expansive interpretation of the term “disability” could increase potential legal exposure to failure to accommodate claims under the ADA, making it more important than ever to ensure that your restaurants and bars are equipped to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with severe food allergies.
Tips to ... |
Last week, Washington Legal Foundation published a Legal Backgrounder regarding OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”) authored by Eric J. Conn, Head of Epstein Becker & Green’s national OSHA Practice Group. The Legal Backgrounder expands on a series of posts here on the OSHA Law Update blog regarding OSHA’s controversial Severe Violator Enforcement Program.
The article focuses on a White Paper issued by OSHA this Spring, in which OSHA analyzes the first 18 months of its new, controversial enforcement program. The White Paper concludes that the SVEP is ...
By: Kara Maciel
Last week, I had the honor of attending the Resort Hotel Association’s (“RHA”) Annual Conference at The Edgewater Hotel in Seattle. RHA is comprised of 130 independently-owned resorts, hotels, city clubs and spas in the United States and specializes in insurance programs that address the risks unique to the lodging industry. For the second year in a row, RHA invited me and my colleague, Jordan Schwartz, to speak on the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and public accommodations issues that hotel and lodging operators face. The room was packed and ...
Our Epstein Becker Green colleague Stuart M. Gerson recently commented in an article titled "4th Circuit Upholds ACA's Employer Mandate, Says Insurance Regulation Within Commerce," by Mary Anne Pazanowski, in Bloomberg BNA's Health Care Daily Report. Following is an excerpt:
A unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit July 11 declared the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate commerce under the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause (Liberty University Inc. v. Lew, 4th Cir., No. 10-2347, 7/11/13).
In an opinion ...
By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Group at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Last month, OSHA issued an enforcement memorandum directing inspectors to scrutinize whether employers provide and maintain adequate means of exit; i.e., unlocked, unobstructed, and clearly marked exit doors and exit routes and doors that comply with 29 C.F.R. 1910 Subpart E - Means of Egress (specifically, the various requirements of 1910.36). The memo was issued in response to a deadly explosion and ammonia release at a poultry processing plant in China on June 4, 2013, in which at least 120 employees lost their lives, many because they were unable to exit the plant due to blocked or locked exits.
In the enforcement memorandum, OSHA announced that:
“During inspections of all workplaces [Compliance Safety & Health Officers] should be mindful of whether the employer has provided and maintained adequate means of egress from work areas; e.g., adequate number of exit routes are provided, exit routes are free and obstructed, and exit doors are not locked.”
This list of items for review is consistent with the criteria OSHA identified in its Emergency Exit Routes Fact Sheet. Here are the basic requirements for complying with 1910.36 set forth in OSHA’s regulations and the Fact Sheet:
- Employers must determine how many exits routes are required in its building. As a general rule, workplaces must have a minimum of two exits, and possibly more based on the number of employees, the size of the building, and the arrangement of the workplace. One exit route may be allowed if the size of the building, its occupancy, or arrangement allows all employees to evacuate safely.
- Exit routes must be maintained unobstructed,
and the exit doors must remain unlocked from the inside. Specifically, exit routes must be free of stored materials, equipment, and especially explosive or highly flammable furnishings. Exits doors must be conspicuous, visible, free of decoration, and unlocked from the inside.
- Exit routes and doors must be properly labeled and maintained. Proper labels include signs that read “EXIT” or “TO EXIT” in plain legible letters, and maintained with adequate lighting. Doors or passages along the exit route that are not exits and do not lead to exits must be marked as “NOT AN EXIT” or labeled such that their non-exit purpose is obvious (e.g., store room, office, etc.).
Although the Enforcement Memorandum features the tragic anecdote about the Chinese poultry plant, OSHA’s Director of the Directorate of Enforcement specifically instructs his enforcement team to look out for egress issues in inspections at “all workplaces.”
By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Group at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
Last month, OSHA issued an enforcement memorandum directing inspectors to scrutinize whether employers provide and maintain adequate means of exit; i.e., unlocked, unobstructed, and clearly marked exit doors and exit routes and doors that comply with 29 C.F.R. 1910 Subpart E – Means of Egress (specifically, the various requirements of 1910.36). The memo was issued in response to a deadly explosion and ammonia release at a poultry processing plant in China on June 4, 2013, in which at least 120 employees lost their ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Video: How Modern Workplaces Navigate Generational Shifts: One-on-One with Jeff Landes
- Updated New York Retail Worker Safety Act Takes Effect Soon
- Video: Independent Contractor Rule, EEO-1 Reporting, and New York Labor Law Amendment - Employment Law This Week
- Colorado’s Historic AI Law Survives Without Delay (So Far)
- Disparate Impact Liability Under Fire