Abortion |

Accommodating Patient Preferences No Defense To Prohibited Employment Discrimination

July 31, 2023

A new federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit reminds health industry and other employers that patient or other customer preferences do not justify or excuse an employer’s discrimination against employees in violation of the Civil Rights Act or other federal employment discrimination laws.

Brooklyn-based home health company ACARE HHC Inc., doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency (“Four Seasons”) faces a race discrimination suit for allegedly removing home health aides from their work assignments due to their race and national origin to accommodate client preferences.

According to a lawsuit (EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760), filed by the EEOC in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York on July 31, 2023, Four Seasons violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Civil Rights Act”) by routinely acceding to racial preferences of patients in making home health aide assignments. The EEOC claims Four Seasons routinely removed Black and Hispanic home health aides based on clients’ race and national origin-based requests. Four Seasons would transfer aides to a new assignment or, if no other assignment was available, the aides lost their employment completely. The EEOC charges this alleged conduct violates the Civil Rights Act, which among other things prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and national origin. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future discrimination based on employees’ race and national origin.

The lawsuit, warns employers against resigning or assigning workers to accommodate racial or other prohibited discriminatory preferences of customers, or business partners. “Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

The lawsuit is one of a plethora of enforcement Civil Rights and other federal discrimination law actions by EEOC, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, and other federal agencies under the Biden Administration’s prioritization of expansion and enforcement of discrimination and other discrimination and equal opportunity laws.

In light of these efforts, employers should take immediate steps to update policies, postings, training, and practices to ensure their ability to defend their compliance with race and other federal nondiscrimination laws.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and VIce-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Leave a Comment » | Abortion, Academic medicine, air ambulance, Child Care, Childcare, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Direct Primary Care, Discrimination, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employer, exchange plans, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health Plan, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, long-term care, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Nonprofits, nursing home, OCR, OIG, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Provider contracting, Rehabilitation Act, Reproductive Rights, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Recommits To LGBTQ Nondiscrimination Protections In Newly Proposed Rules; Religious Exemption Likely Limited By Pending HHS Changes In Religious Freedom Protections

July 11, 2023

Health care providers, health insurance issuers, health care professional associations, state and local government entities and other organizations and providers participating or receiving funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) funded programs should evaluate their likely responsibilities and exposures for preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender under the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“NPRM”) to the Health and Human Services Grants Regulation (the “Proposed HHS Grants Rule”) the HHS Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (“ASFR”) released to the public today (July 11, 2023) and scheduled for joint publication the Federal Register on July 13, 2023.

Proposed HHS Grants Rule Overview

The NPRM builds on HHS’ efforts to ensure access to health and human services for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (“LGBTQI”) individuals in furtherance of President Biden’s Executive Orders on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation and Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals by reaffirming the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal statutes administered by HHS while defining procedures through which HHS would permit organization with religious objections to seek an exemption from or modification of the otherwise applicable requirements.

The Proposed HHS Grants Rule clarifies and reaffirms HHS’ prohibition against LGBTQI discrimination by stating, “In statutes that HHS administers which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, the Department interprets those provisions to include a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), and other federal court precedent applying Bostock’s reasoning that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The Proposed HHS Grants Rule represents the latest effort of HHS to finalize and implement prohibition against LGBTQI individuals in HHS first undertaken in 2016. Since HHS originally adding the prohibition against LGBTQI discrimination to its HHS Grants Rule, HHS faced various court challenges to its LGBTQI nondiscrimination provisions. These challenges included lawsuits challenging HHS’ interpretation of the sex discrimination prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) (“Title VII”) as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity, First Amendment religious freedom challenges and challenges based on alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.

In the intervening years, HHS originally granted various waivers, then subsequently adopted a blanket non-enforcement policy to address First Amendment religious freedom concerns about the LGBTQI discrimination prohibition and attempted to resolve Administrative Procedures Act challenges in subsequently published versions of the rules. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved objections to HHS’ expansive interpretation of Title VII as extending to LGBTQI when it affirmed Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

As currently proposed, the HHS Grants Rule has a sweeping reach. In the Proposed HHS Grant Rule, HHS reaffirms that discrimination against LGBTQI individuals is prohibited in virtually all HHS-funded and administered programs while revising the existing HHS Grants Rule to address when and how a provider with faith-based objections to the rules can seek exemption or other religious accommodations from HHS.

As currently proposed the Proposed HHS Grants Rule would treat LGBTQI discrimination as prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in most HHS regulated or funded programs. The LGBTQI discrimination prohibition would apply to authorizations for domestic resettlement of and assistance to refugees; assistance in transition from homelessness; Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances; Title VII Health Workforce Programs; Nursing Workforce Development; Preventive Health Services Block Grant; Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Block Grant; Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; Maternal and Child Health Block Grant; Disaster relief; Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; Head Start; Community Services Block Grant Program; and Family Violence Prevention and Services programs.

HHS’ announcement of its plans to reaffirm its LGBTQI equal protection requirements in the HHS Grants Rule likely will prompt new attention and scrutiny from organizations and individuals with faith-based objections to its mandates, particularly given HHS’ release of the rule comes less than two weeks after the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2023 landmark ruling in 303 Creative LLC . v. Elenis, 600 U. S. ____ (2023), upholding the right of a website designer, who believes same-sex marriage contravenes her faith, to exemption from enforcement of a state law that prohibited a public business from communicating to patrons that service would be refused based on sexual orientation.

The Proposed HHS Grants Rule includes provisions requiring HHS to accommodate the religious rights of organizations or individuals with faith-based objections protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) or the First Amendment when administering and enforcing its provisions without specifically detailing the procedures for raising such objections or the standards HHS will apply to decide whether to approve a request for religious exemption or accommodation.

In this respect, the Proposed HHS Grants Rule provides that a recipient at any time may notify the HHS awarding agency, ASFR, or the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the recipient’s view that it is exempt from, or requires modified application of, certain provisions of the Rule due to the RFRA, the First Amendment or another religious freedom law. The Proposed HHS Grants Rule also directs that once the awarding agency receives notice of religious objection from a particular recipient, “any relevant ongoing compliance activity regarding the recipient shall be held in abeyance” until the applicable agencies in legal consultation with the HHS Office of the General Counsel determine whether the recipient is exempt from the application of certain provisions or entitled to modified application of the rules based on a federal religious freedom law.

While the Proposed HHS Grants Rule does not detail the procedures for requesting religious accommodation or the standards HHS will use to decide whether to approve requests, HHS does address those standards and procedures in other guidance, the current provision of which are highlighted on the HHS Conscience and Religious Freedom Webpage. It bears noting, however, that along with the Proposed HHS Grants Rule, HHS also currently is considering a separate proposal to narrow the availability of religious and conscience objections to its rules it announced in a January 5, 2023 Notice of Proposed Rule Making titled “Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes” (“Proposed Religion Rule”). While the official comment period for the Proposed Religion Rule closed on March 6, 2023, its provisions, if adopted as proposed, could materially affect the interpretation and enforcement of the HHS Grants Rule. Accordingly, organizations and other parties concerned about the likely interpretation and enforcement of the HHS Grants Rule with respect to parties claiming religious freedom objections should consider the likely implications of the Proposed Religion Rule in their evaluation of the HHS Grants Rule.

In response to the HHS Grants Rule, all health care providers, health plans and others expected to be impacted by the Proposed HHS Grants Rule should both begin preparing to adjust their existing policies and practices in anticipation of the finalization of the Proposed HHS Grants Rule as well as submit relevant concerns and other feedback on the Proposed Rule by the September 11, 2023 comment deadline established in the NPRM. Providers and other stakeholders with potential faith-based concerns about any of the requirements of the Proposed HHS Grants Rule should take particular note of the Rule’s proposed provisions regarding religious accommodation, taking into account the Proposed Religion Rule purposes of this planning as well as their timely submission of any comments by the applicable September 11, 2023 comment deadline.