As you may know, in 2018 the health care Cadillac Tax will be implemented. The Cadillac Tax is the 40% tax an employer will be forced to pay on any health coverage plan costing over $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family.

Now, some will argue only a few plans will be targeted. They say only the ridiculous, gold-plated plans of the fabulously wealthy will get hit. But I wonder about that.

Consider this: many smaller employers use health care plans that are age rated. The older you get, the more you pay.

That’s the boat I’m in, along with many thousands of others across the country. These aren’t exactly “Cadillac” plans, just basic plans that hit you with increased premiums because you had the bad luck to get older.

Looking ahead, and figuring what the health care plan would be for me at age 50 and above (ouch!), I’m seeing a projected cost of $22,438.00

Subtracting $10,200 from that amount leaves $12,238.00, which is subject to the draconian 40% tax. Therefore, my employer will be forced to kick in $4,895 in extra taxes to the guv-ment.

The thing is, it doesn’t matter what percentage I pay of the total cost or what percentage the employer pays. What matters is only the total cost of the plan. The tax gets paid by the employer.

I have to wonder about the financial burden this places on small employers, and whether they’ll want to bear it.

I doubt it. I think many employers will be forced to huddle up the accountants and start crunching the numbers. Maybe canceling the health care plans for the employees and forcing them to the government exchanges might be a better option, even if they have to pay a penalty tax for doing so. Or maybe offsetting the tax by contributing less and less to the plan. Sort of: Dear employee, you pay all the premium, we’ll pay all the tax.

Who knows? Of course, the health care law has some pretty significant hurdles to pass right now, and there’s a chance the whole thing might be scrapped anyway. We’ll see what the Supreme Court says.

But as we go forward, each year brings forth new mandates and more questions about if this health care reform program was really what it was promised to be.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Still Time to Review the New California Laws for 2012
• The Oakland Violence and Bullying Linked?
• Part 20: The Final Chapter
• The Magic Word
• A Curious Statement, Indeed

At any rate, in case you missed it, HR California CalChamber recently published an overview of the new 2012 California laws affecting employers.

The new laws cover issues ranging from credit checks, pregnancy disability leave, and pay and commission agreements, to banning discrimination based on “genetic information,” or “gender expression.”

The CalChamber overview of the new 2012 laws can be downloaded here.

Possibly Related Posts:

• A 2018 Train Wreck Coming?
• The Oakland Violence and Bullying Linked?
• Part 20: The Final Chapter
• The Magic Word
• A Curious Statement, Indeed

The alleged shooter, One Goh, had been upset about teasing from classmates over his poor English skills, according to Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan.

Just recently, SHRM published its report on workplace bullying. Although the Goh incident occurred at a school, the possibility of workplace violence due to bullying is always present.

If you missed it, it might be a good time to review the SHRM study.

It can be downloaded here.

Possibly Related Posts:

• A 2018 Train Wreck Coming?
• Still Time to Review the New California Laws for 2012
• Part 20: The Final Chapter
• The Magic Word
• A Curious Statement, Indeed

We discussed my “allegations” with the exception of Chrysti Corkill’s case. Each time I mentioned anything about the Chrysti Corkill case she glossed over it. She concentrated mostly on the comments Daryl Tilghman made about the many female employees at Preferred Employers Insurance Company and W. R. Berkley, my performance reviews, and some of the work I had done at PEIC.

She asked a lot of questions, but there was no detailed discussion about the FMLA issue with Chrysti Corkill, how her leave was miscalculated, or why this type of issue carried serious ramifications for the company.

We never discussed in detail about the retaliation I saw against Chrysti, who was doing the retaliation, what the retaliation consisted of, or Daryl’s response to it. I was prepared to talk at length about it and I had brought additional notes to the meeting. (Remember, I asked her when I spoke to her the day before our meeting if there was anything I should bring to this meeting, such as my notebooks, and she never gave me an answer as to what I should bring.)

She was very suspicious about the notes I brought with me. I had them organized and bound, and she questioned me about that, asking me, “What is that?” And I told her they were my notes.

She asked me “Why are they bound?” I told her that from long habit I was very organized, that I kept copies of everything, and binding them made it easy for me to keep it all organized.

She had a perplexed look on her face and the tone of her voice, when questioning me about my bound notes, came across like I had something she didn’t have and it bothered her. So, I elaborated a bit about what was in my bound notes. I proceeded to tell her that I had copies of both of my letters that I had sent to Carol LaPunzina, along with some bullet points of some items to help jog my memory, if needed. She still looked a bit confused, but continued on with her questioning of me.

As we talked, Sheryl typed and I mentioned to her that the sound of her typing was bothersome. She stopped typing and took handwritten notes instead. We finished after 3 ½ hours of talking and Sheryl Willert said I had to go as Daryl Tilghman was supposed to be there by noon. She also said she would be in touch.

On November 8, 2010, I received a voicemail from Sheryl Willert. I called her back and she asked again about the additional notes I had brought to our meeting. (She seemed very concerned about these notes.) She requested I email them to her and I did.

On the evening of November 17, 2010, I received another phone call from Sheryl Willert. She said she had a few more questions for me. She asked me again about the comments Daryl made about the female employees and she asked me again what he specifically said about which female employees. She asked were the comments only about employees or applicants too? I said applicants too. She also asked me who may have heard Daryl Tilghman make these comments.

That was the last time I talked to Sheryl Willert.

Twelve days later, on November 29, 2010, Linda Smith stopped by my office at 4:30 pm and asked me to meet with her and the attorney to go over the results of the investigation. I met with her, but the “attorney’ turned out to be Donna Latham, who was, I learned later, another W.R. Berkley employee.

Donna Latham briefly gave me the results of the investigation by reading from a sheet of paper. The first result was that Daryl Tilghman did gossip about Linda Smith and other executives’ confidential information. Second, I was trying to get Daryl Tilghman’s job or a promotion. Those were the complete results. I was stunned. I asked Donna to repeat, twice, the part about how I had done this to get Daryl’s job. I asked her, “What do you mean by that?” Donna said, “That’s all it says.” She would not elaborate.

Then I asked for a copy of the investigation results, and Donna Latham refused. She said they were her notes. To this date I have never seen a copy of the investigative report.

Linda Smith then immediately spoke and said “I have something to say about this too. We are outsourcing the HR department and this is your last day.” I was not allowed to return to my desk and I was escorted from the building.

So, that’s the end of the story. It’s a story that I had inside information about, and a story that until now has never been revealed. During my series, which began February 3 with the first of 24 articles, a lot of questions have finally been answered, but many more have been raised.

At some point I hope to have all the answers, but whether that is possible remains to be seen.

If anyone has any further comments or questions about my series, or has information about events I don’t know about, please feel free to contact me anytime at either kim (at) kimberlydurban.com, or at kimberlydurban (at) gmail.com.

I hope you enjoyed the series.

Possibly Related Posts:

• A 2018 Train Wreck Coming?
• Still Time to Review the New California Laws for 2012
• The Oakland Violence and Bullying Linked?
• The Magic Word
• A Curious Statement, Indeed

As a defense, an employer might say the employee never said specifically he/she was “disabled.” Therefore, the defense goes, the employer had no knowledge and accordingly bears no responsibiity.

However, the EEOC has made it clear this is not the case and also provided a guide and examples:

“When an individual decides to request accommodation, the individual or his/her representative must let the employer know that s/he needs an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition. To request accommodation, an individual may use “plain English” and need not mention the ADA or use the phrase “reasonable accommodation.”(19)

Example D: An employee tells his supervisor that he would like a new chair because his present one is uncomfortable. Although this is a request for a change at work, his statement is insufficient to put the employer on notice that he is requesting reasonable accommodation. He does not link his need for the new chair with a medical condition.”

From the EEOC Guide “Requesting Reasonable Accommodation”

There have been many published court decisions that make for some dry reading on this topic, but it’s much more interesting to hear it actually played out in court.

Here’s an instance, for example, in the Preferred Employers Insurance Company v. Chrysti Corkill EDD appeal case where that happened:

Part 20: The Final Chapter

Possibly Related Posts:

• A 2018 Train Wreck Coming?
• Still Time to Review the New California Laws for 2012
• The Oakland Violence and Bullying Linked?
• Part 20: The Final Chapter
• A Curious Statement, Indeed

But maybe a new document I’ve just received will shed some light.

Remember, Linda Smith and Rosemary Favier both asserted that it was important to fill the empty position quickly.

Linda Smith, under questioning by Josh Gruenberg, Chrysti Corkill’s attorney:

Q. Okay. Did you — so your testimony is you thought plaintiff would be out for several months, correct?

THE WITNESS: — that hire — I’m sorry –as immediate as we could find the correct person to fill that position.

And now Rosemary Favier, also under questioning by Josh Gruenberg:

Q. You indicated that Ms. Corkill coming back and working part time was quote/unquote not appropriate correct?

A. Absolutely.

And we’ve seen how, in the official PEIC response to the DFEH, PEIC stated that the:

Consequences of failing to perform the full functions of the position could result in significant financial costs to the Company in the following ways:

-Lack of daily oversight of the network physicians and vendors damages the integrity of the overall network and could result in legal action against the Company.

So why did it take until November to fill that position?

Well, maybe this email of April 20, 2010, by Rosemary Favier will shed some light.

“The person who had the job, left just about a week ago, I have been so busy, I really hadn’t given this position much thought yet.”

A curious statement, indeed.

Next: The Magic Word

Possibly Related Posts:

• A 2018 Train Wreck Coming?
• Still Time to Review the New California Laws for 2012
• The Oakland Violence and Bullying Linked?
• Part 20: The Final Chapter
• The Magic Word