Earlier this month, the House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill that would make offering paid sick leave mandatory for employers.

If passed, the Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require any company with 15 or more employees to offer full-time workers seven paid sick days a year. Part-time employees would get a prorated amount based on how much they work.

Like the FMLA, the HFA would let employees take time to care for themselves or a family member. The leave would be legally protected — meaning employees could sue if they feel they’ve been retaliated against for using it.

The HFA is less strict than the FMLA, however. “Family member” includes any blood relative and anyone whose relationship with the employee is “the equivalent of a family relationship.” Any physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition could result in a protected absence.

What about current paid leave policies?

The bill says employers won’t need to change anything if they already give employees sick leave that’s at least equivalent to what’s required by HFA. But employers would be prohibited from eliminating leave they already offer in an attempt to offset the mandatory sick days.

That means companies won’t be able to reduce vacation time to offset the costs of additional sick time. And some experts interpet the provision to mean companies offering a general PTO bank would need to add seven sick days in addition to what’s already available.

What to expect

Attorney Mike Aitken, speaking at a recent Society for Human Resources Management conference in Washington, D.C., said he expects Congress to take a vote on the bill this spring.

The HFA was introduced in the Senate a few years ago and failed to move. But that was before President Obama — a vocal supporter of the bill — and an increased Congressional Democrat majority arrived in Washington.

So far, no states have made sick leave mandatory — measures have failed in California, Ohio, New Jersey and Washington. Three cities — San Francisco, Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. — have passed mandatory sick leave laws.

We’ll keep you posted on the HFA.

Legal experts are still trying to comb their way through the 1,079-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act President Obama signed into law last month. And deep in the document, they’re finding several provisions that will have a big impact on HR.

1. Tax breaks

One change that could affect companies’ hiring plans: a tax incentive to boost the employment of certain disadvantaged groups.

Under the new law, businesses can claim a 40% credit on the first $6,000 of wages paid to:

• unemployed veterans (people discharged from military duty within the past five years who’ve received at least four weeks of unemployment benefits within the previous 12 months), and
• “disconnected youths” (individuals between the ages of 16 and 25 who haven’t worked or attended school in the past six months).

2. New HIPAA regs

The stimulus package expands the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to give businesses more responsibility in keeping health records confidential.

Under the new provision, in the event of a breach of health data, any business covered by HIPAA must notify affected individuals within 60 days after they discover the information has been compromised.

3. COBRA subsidy

Under the stimulus plan, the government will subsidize COBRA health insurance premiums for employees who have lost or will lose their jobs between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009. Here’s how it’ll work:

Employees are responsible for paying 35% of the premiums. Employers pay the rest, then claim their share as an offset against payroll tax liability.

Any workers who were terminated after Sept. 1 but didn’t take COBRA will get a second chance. Employers must send those employees a new notice before April 15.

4. Increased unemployment benefits

The plan gives states more money for unemployment benefits, extending a program that offers benefits for an additional seven weeks. Also, the law expands eligibility to employees who lose their jobs due to certain family reasons, such as a spouse’s relocation or the need for time to take care of a sick family member.

As a result, experts say, employers could end up paying higher unemployment insurance taxes.

Barrack Obama recently discussed the EFCA in an interview with the Washington Post. Here’s the gist:

Obama said he’d like to make it easier for employees to join unions and that “the basic outlines of the [EFCA] are ones I agree with.” However, he also said he’ll listen to all sides and is willing to help them reach a compromise. “There are steps that we can take other than the [EFCA],” he said, “that will make a difference there.”

When asked if the act would a priority for his first year in office, Obama answered: “Let’s see what the legislative docket looks like.”

What does it mean?

Though it’s still one of Obama’s priorities, some members of the business community now feel the EFCA will be put on hold while more pressing economic issues are dealt with. Other experts expect some of the more union-friendly provisions will be eliminated through compromise.

We’ll keep you posted.

You can read a transcript of the interview here.

What are your thoughts on the EFCA? Share your views in the comments section below.

Though it was only signed a few weeks ago, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has already caused big legal problems for some companies.

Signed by President Obama on January 29, the Ledbetter Act gives employees more time to sue when they believe they’re victims of pay discrimination. The Supreme Court had previously ruled pay bias suits had to be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory decision.

But the new law gives employees a new 180-day window to sue every time they receive a paycheck in which they claim they are discriminated against.

The act was effective immediately — and applies retroactively to lawsuits still pending as of May 28, 2007, the day before the Supreme Court’s decision.

It’s already made it tougher to prevent discrimination suits:

In one case, three women sued their employer, claiming they were unfairly demoted because of their gender.

The demotions occurred in 1990 — so the company argued the employees missed out on the statute of limitations.

But the court issued a ruling on February 2 — four days after the Ledbetter Act was signed. And, since the demotions resulted in a loss of pay that continued to the present day, the court ruled the new law applied to their lawsuit.

The judge noted that just a week earlier, the case would have been tossed on those grounds. But not anymore.

Eventually, the case was thrown out because the company proved the demotions were based on non-biased factors (Cite: Bush v. Orange Counry Corrections Dept.).

In another recent case, an employee believed he was being paid less than his colleagues based on his race and gender. He sued.

The company tried to have the case dismissed because his pay was set several years before — well outside the statute of limitations. But the judge let the case go forward, applying the Ledbetter Act to his claims (Cite: Rehman v. State University of New York at Stony Brook).

What can HR do now?

Given the law’s immediate impact, what steps can HR take now to prevent lawsuits based on decisions that occurred far in the past?

Some experts recommend conducting a self-audit to uncover anything that could look like pay discrimination.

First, examine company policies on starting salaries and raises. Many companies don’t have a formal policy, giving individual managers wide discretion in pay decisions — which could turn out to be a liability under the new law.

Next, consider analyzing pay data to make sure no employees have been harmed by unfair decisions that violated your policy. Then, your company can remedy the situation without having to go to court.

Just as employers were set to start using an updated version of the Form I-9, the feds have delayed the implementation of the new form. What now?

Employers would’ve been required to use the updated I-9 on February 2. But on January 30, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service announced the effective date has been pushed back to April 3.

The delay was issued in response to a memorandum from the Obama administration asking federal agencies to freeze certain unimplemented regulations.

The USCIS has also extended the time it’s taking comments from the public on the new form. Comments will be accepted until March 4. In other words, the update isn’t final, yet. There’s still a chance the form could change again before going into effect.

What’s changing?

The biggest change planned for the I-9: Employers will no longer be able to accept expired documents for employment eligibility verification. Right now, employees can submit expired passports and other documents, but that’s being stopped because expired IDs are easier to forge.

Also, three “List A” documents will be removed: the “Temporary Resident Card” (Form I-688) and “Employment Authorization Cards” (Forms I-688A and I-688B). The USCIS no longer issues those cards, and any that are in circulation have expired by now. Instead, people are issued Form I-766, which remains on the list.

These documents will be added to List A:

• the U.S. Passport Card to List A
• foreign passports containing machine-readable visas, and
• passports from certain citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

What form should employers use now?

For now, employers should continue using the current version (it’s dated 06/05/07 at the bottom of the last page) and be prepared to change forms on April 3.

Both the current form and the one employers will be required to switch to are available here.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed last week by the Senate, after getting approval from the House of Representatives earlier in the month.

The bill now goes to President Obama, who has been a vocal supporter of the new law. He’s expected to sign it on January 29.

It will overturn a 2007 Supreme Court case — Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. – by greatly expanding the statute of limitations for pay bias claims.

Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear after learning she’d been paid less than males working the same job.

The Court decided against her, because she failed to file her complaint within the statute of limitations. According to the Court, she had to file within 180 days after the discriminatory decision was made — in this case, when she was hired 20 years ago.

The new law will give employees a new 180-day window to sue every time they receive a paycheck in which they claim they are discriminated against.

Now that the election’s over, experts are focusing on what legislative changes can be expected under the new president. HR pros will be watching a few big items on Obama’s agenda.

To promote the new administration’s plan, the Office of the President-Elect has set up a Web site to outline key initiatives.

Several of the proposals, if successful, will have a huge impact on HR:

1. More power to unions

Obama is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill which could greatly expand the power of labor unions. Experts say the EFCA has a good chance of passing with Obama as president.

Under current regs, employers can require a union to hold a secret ballot vote before being certified by the National Labor Relations Board. The EFCA, however, would allow certification of a union if a majority of employees sign authorization cards.

Opponents of the bill claim the elimination of the secret ballot will diminish workers’ rights to freely decide whether they want to be represented by a union. They argue the card system leaves employees open to greater pressure from both sides.

2. Increased FMLA coverage

The President-elect has proposed several expansions to the Family and Medical Leave Act, including:

• expanding coverage requirements to include companies with at least 25 employees
• granting employees leave to address domestic violence and sexual assault, and
• giving parents 24 hours of leave a year to participate in their children’s academic activities.

3. Expanded paid leave

Several cities and states have passed or proposed laws giving workers the right to paid family and medical leave. Obama plans to set aside a $1.5 billion fund to help companies and governments with the cost of implementing paid leave programs.

Also in the works is a proposal requiring all employers to give full-time workers seven paid sick days a year.

4. More protected classes for discrimination cases

Obama also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which was passed in the House of Representatives last year but has yet to be voted on in the Senate.

ENDA would prohibit companies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

5. Greater protection against pay bias

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was drafted in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Ledbetter sued Goodyear, claiming she was paid less than men doing the same job for more than 20 years.

The case was thrown out because the law says she had to sue within 180 days after the biased pay decision was made — i.e., when she was hired. The new law would give plaintiffs 180 days from the time they learn about possible discrimination.

Obama supports the law, and experts say it’s likely to pass with him in the White House and a greater Democratic majority in Congress.