Little Health Law Blog
Welcome to the first of our holiday-themed (at least in title) blog posts. As we approach the holidays at the conclusion of a financially challenging year, cost savings may be on the minds of many 
healthcare business owners. Healthcare employers may be considering—or have already considered—measures to save money and reduce payroll. 2020 was a difficult year for most businesses, and reducing payroll is an oft-appealing way to reduce expenses. Frequently, a business’s highest paid earners are also among the older employees. That fact prompts a look at the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1975 (“ADEA”) prior to making any employment decisions, such as eliminating positions.
For healthcare employers with 20 or more employees, the ADEA governs and makes it an unlawful employment practice to “discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623. The regulations create a protected class for individuals who are “40 years or older.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.2. To be certain, the ADEA and accompanying regulations do not require preferential treatment of employees over 40, and “[f]avoring an older individual over a younger individual because of age is not unlawful discrimination.” Id.
An employee establishes a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing he or she “was (1) a member of the protected age group, (2) subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) qualified to do the job, and (4) replaced by or otherwise lost a position to a younger individual.” Johnson v. Unified Gov’t of Athens-Clarke Cnty., 209 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1341–42 (M.D. Ga. 2016). The fourth prong, however, is generally not satisfied when it comes to position eliminations because the older employee was not replaced by anyone. See Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int’l, LLC, 746 F.2d 1264, 1271 (11th Cir. 2014). The law accounts for this by altering the fourth prong in “reduction in force” cases, requiring the employee to “present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employer intended to discriminate on the basis of age through its employment decision.” Zaben v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 129 F.3d 1453, 1459 (11th Cir. 1997). One such “method of establishing a nexus between age discrimination and adverse employment action is by statistical proof of a pattern of discrimination.” Pace v. S. Ry. Sys., 701 F.2d 1383, 1388 (11th Cir. 1983).
wever, a party must establish a valid contract. A contract is created when there has been an offer identifying a “bargained for exchange,” acceptance of that offer, and an exchange or promise to exchange valuable consideration. Sauner v. Public Serv. Auth. of S.C., 581 S.E.2d 161, 166 (S.C. 2003). Once a contract has been created, both parties are bound by their duties thereunder.
health, safety, or disability reasons. In Part 2, we examine how the state of businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the discussion of whether telework is a reasonable accommodation.
employers are unsure how to respond to such requests on both a practical and legal level. This two-part series addresses some legal considerations for employers and employees regarding teleworking as a way to minimize health risks posed by COVID-19 for individuals with disabilities. In Part 1, herein, we provide an overview of the reasonable accommodation laws protecting an employee with a disability.
assists medical practice owners with set up, a variety of business transactions, dissolutions and wind-down of the business. Medical licensing rules do not necessarily govern the non-physician owner, but there are potential obligations all owners should be aware of.
government organizations that experienced revenue losses from COVID-19. The purpose of the Act is to offer financial relief and to establish telehealth benefits for patients needing non-COVID-19 services. Section A of the Act authorizes programs for relief and contains information about mandatory spending provisions, while section B contains provisions regarding discretionary and emergency appropriations. Over the next few weeks, this blog will discuss recent changes to the CARES Act, and the impact that those modifications are having on hospitals and physician practices. This post provides a brief overview of the CARES Act, as well as the attestation process that providers must follow upon receiving funds.
to audit providers suspected of fraud. UPIC contracts combine Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPIC’s) and Medicaid Integrity Contractors (MIC’s) to coordinate Medicare and Medicaid auditing. UPIC’s focus primarily on Medicare claims, and seek to distinguish between provider billing errors or fraud.
se be used and allows physicians to manage chronic illnesses remotely, without the in-person interaction that exposes provider and patient to the risk of spread. This increased reliance on telemedicine has prompted state and federal legislative bodies to pass new rules and guidelines to promote access to telehealth services by reducing costs, increasing availability, and promoting relationships between healthcare providers and their patients. Our Georgia-based business and healthcare law firm follows regulatory developments that impact healthcare providers. As of the date of this post, seven states (Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, and Utah) have waived restrictions on telehealth. More relaxation of telehealth rules may be expected.