OCR’s 8th Investigation Announcement Clearly Warns HHS-Funded Organizations To Ensure Merit-Based Decisions & Manage Antisemitism & Other Prohibited Discrimination Risks

May 14, 2025

Academic medicine and other education, health care, Medicare or Medicaid Advantage insurers, and other organizations received another warning to update and strengthen the defensibility of their policies and practices system-wide for preventing anti-Semitism, and other race, color, national origin, race, religious or other discrimination from the Department of Health & Human Service’s May 13, 2025, announcement of another investigation of another university for anti-Semitism in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”) and other federal civil rights laws. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “CRA”), the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”) and various other federal laws discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color and certain other status by covered government or private organizations by health care, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, academic medicine and other education, child care, research and other HHS-funded organizations, employers and other entities.

Since President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) took office in January, HHS OCR, the Departments of Education and Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and other federal agencies are aggressively investigating anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, and certain other race, color, national origin and religious discrimination by academic medicine and other educational institutions, health care organizations, health insurers, employers and other organizations covered by these civil rights laws. These investigations and enforcement actions target prohibited discrimination in all forms, including the use of race, national original, color, sex, religion and other non-merit based criteria, even when those criteria are applied to promote racial balancing, diversity or other similar goals.

Trump Merit-Based Civil Rights Executive Orders Heighten Public & Private Civil Rights & Other Discrimination Risks

This heightened investigation and enforcement emphasis is a direct response to the directives of President Trump in a series of Executive Orders directing federal agencies zealously to combat anti-Semitism, anti-Christian, and other discrimination or bias based on race, color, national origin and religion.  See e.g., Executive Order 14188 – Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism (January 29, 2025); Executive Order 14202, Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias (February 6, 2025); Executive Order 14291, Establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission (“May 11, 2025); and Executive Order 14291, Establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission (May 1, 2025).

As part of these directives, President Trump specifically singled out anti-Semitism for special attention and concern, In Executive Order 14188, for instance, President Trump directed HHS, the Justice Department and other agencies to vigorously enforce the Civil Rights Act to combat the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. and around the world.  While Executive Order 14188 specifically targeted the use of the Civil Rights Act and other federal prohibitions against race, color and national origin discrimination to fight anti-Semitism, Executive Order 14188 also noted that anti-Semitism also can violate federal protections against religious discrimination, stating:

…[Title VII] prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.

The Trump Administration’s emphasis on protecting federal right of conscience and other religious freedom protections is made more perilous by his sharp disagreement, revocation, and characterization as patently illegal various key aspects of the interpretation and enforcement policies of the Biden, Obama and other previous administration regarding federal right of conscience and other religious freedom, sexual orientation, reproductive rights and other civil rights policies and protections. See e.g., Executive Order 14281 -Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (April 23, 2025). These directives and widespread coverage and publicity of the actions by HHS and other federal agencies to implement and enforce the Administration’s Merit Based interpretation and enforcement of civil rights laws are fueling a a slew of new federal investigations and enforcement, as well as encouraging and shaping private discrimination claims by both parties advantaged or disadvantaged by the Administration’s interpretations.

As reflected by OCR’s May 13, 2025 announcement of its investigation of complaints against a “prestigious” midwestern university (“University”), OCR and other federal agencies are responding by zealously investigating complaints of anti-Semitism or other race, color, national origin and religious discrimination by academic and other health care, education, health insurance and other organizations receiving federal funding under programs managed by HHS.

Announced OCR Investigations Since February Show HHS Enforcement Risks

According to OCR, the investigation announced on May 13, 2025, and other investigations “[are] part of a broader effort by the Administration’s multi-agency Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. OCR opened the investigation against the University in response to a complaint from a multi-stakeholder advocacy organization that alleges “systemic concerns regarding the University’s actions to maintain a campus climate, academic direction, and institutional policy that ensures nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.” OCR says its investigation will examine whether the University complied with its obligations under Title VI not to discriminate against Jewish students, such that it denied them an educational opportunity or benefit.

Before OCR issued is May 13, 2025, announcement, OCR and other federal agencies previously had announced Civil Rights Act and other investigations of illegal anti-Semitism at four academic medical centers based on their response to protests and other anti-Semitic activity during graduation and other activities. In addition, OCR also had announced similarly high-profile investigation or enforcement actions against Harvard University and Harvard Law Review, a HHS-funded health services research scholarship program; eight medical schools and hospitals; a HHS-funded health research program;  a California-based medical school; the State of Maine and others for impermissibly applying race, color, national origin, sex, religious or other prohibited criteria in operating their programs.

The message from these and other HHS investigations and enforcements is clear.  “Institutions of higher education receiving HHS Federal financial assistance are responsible for complying with Title VI’s nondiscrimination mandates,” said Anthony Archeval, Acting Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS. “OCR is committed to ensuring students’ education, safety, and well-being are not disrupted due to discrimination at institutions funded by taxpayer dollars.”

Dear Colleague Letter Advises Academic Medicine & Other HHS-Funded Organizations On Implementing Merit Based Decisionmaking

While warning academic medical and other health care and other HHS-funded organizations against the application of non-merit based criteria and other prohibited race, national origin, color, sex and religious discrimination, OCR also has sought to encourage covered entities to adapt their policies and practices to comply with President Trump’s merit based interpretation of the Civil Rights Act and other federal civil rights law prohibitions against race, color, national origin, sex and religious discrimination through a May 6, 2025, “Dear Colleague” Letter.  In the dear Colleague Letter, OCR ‘clarifies’ its updated policies interpreting and enforcing what constitutes race-based discrimination under Title VI, Section 1557, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to student admissions, academic and campus life, and the operation of university hospitals and clinics.

The Dear Colleague Letter reiterates that Title VI and Section 1557 prohibit academic medical and other covered organizations from relying on race-based criteria, racial stereotypes, and facially neutral criteria that operate as a pretext for race.  Instead, citing to the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) and President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, the Dear Colleague Letter warns HHS funded academic medicine and other organizations that these federal rules require health care providers, and those in the health professions pipeline make their selections and decisions “based on merit and clinical skills, not race” or other non-merit based criteria even when the purpose of the use of the criteria is to promote diversity or racial-balancing.

The Dear Colleague Letter discloses that in applying its merit-based interpretation of Title VI and Section 1557, OCR will prioritize enforcement against HHS funded organizations that:

  • Use race as part of their application or employment processes;
  • Require diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in connection with hiring or promotion; or
  • Lack clear policies demonstrating compliance with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

Accordingly, the Dear Colleague Letter advises medical schools and other HHS-funded organizations to:

  • Ensure their policies and procedures comply with existing federal civil rights laws;
  • Discontinue criteria, tools, or processes that serve as substitutes for race or are intended to advance race-based decision-making; and
  • End reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or data aggregators that engage in prohibited uses of race.

Act Now To Mitigate Risks From Past, Current & Future Non-Merit Based Decisions & Other Prohibited Discrimination

The new emphasis of HHS and other agencies on investigation and enforcement of federal protections for race, national origin, and other civil rights laws alone should prompt all health care and other HHS-regulated authorities prospectively to reevaluate and update their own practices to strengthen their defensibility under new standards.

As the Trump Administration civil rights directives and interpretations apply to all federal agencies, all organizations should consider and redress their exposure to civil rights or other discrimination under EEOC and other workforce, Department of Justice, and other applicable agency rules when assessing the adequacy of their existing policies and practices.

Organizations also should anticipate the likely need to defend past actions taking into account given the practice of HHS and other agency to apply the merit-based civil rights law interpretations of the Trump Administration even to events and actions that occurred while organizations were subject to the diversity, equity and inclusion friendly interpretations of federal civil rights laws during the Biden Administration. Since the investigation and enforcement actions announced by HHS and other agencies so far retroactively apply the newly announced Trump-era interpretations and standards to investigations of events and actions that occurred during the Biden Administration, prospective changes to enhance the defensibility of current and future actions alone may not be enough. Rather, health care and other organizations need to prepare for the possibility that HHS or other agencies may require their organization to defend Biden-era events under the new Trump Administration interpretations and enforcement policies. In the face of these developments, all health care organizations receiving funding from HHS should review their current and past policies and actions implicating federally civil rights laws to assess and manage their potential past exposures and mitigate future risks. 

Because the process of reviewing and revising their policies and practices inevitably will require medicine and other HHS-funded institutions to identify and engage in legally and politically sensitive discussions of past and current policies, events, and actions affecting the competing interests of individuals or organizations whose opportunities are either helped or hurt by the Trump Administration’s transition to a merit-based interpretation of civil rights laws as well as potential whistleblower and retaliation exposures, academic medicine and other HHS-funded organizations generally should work with within the scope of attorney-client privilege with legal counsel experienced with these and other civil rights laws and dealing with OCR and other agencies in relation to investigations and enforcement actions under these rules.

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising, representing, and defending health care providers, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage and other public and private health plans and plan sponsors, public and private employers, government contractors and grant recipients, educational organizations, child care facilities, employers, technology, data, third party administrators, and other managed care and other health care, defense, technology, life sciences and other clients about Civil Rights Laws and other religious, civil rights and other discrimination, HIPAA and other privacy and data security, False Claims Act and other billing and reimbursement, quality, technology, licensing and accreditation, whistleblower and other workforce, enforcement, governmental affairs, dispute resolution, and other compliance, risk management and operational matters. If you have questions or need advice or help evaluating or addressing these or other compliance, risk management, or other concerns, contact her. 

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the  or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452-8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you 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 her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on workforce and other risk management and compliance.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care, health insurance and managed care, insurance and financial services, defense contractors, and other workforce and data sensitive businesses domestically and internationally on employment, benefits, data and other knowledge use and protection, Federal Sentencing Guidelines and other workforce and heath care management, internal and operational controls, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a part of this work, she has had extensive involvement in Civil Rights Laws, Section 1557 and other discrimination compliance, training, risk management and defense.

In addition, Ms. Stamer serves as a Scribe for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meetings with OCR and shares her thought leadership as International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. 

Author of many highly regarded compliance, training and other resources on cybercrime and other data privacy and security, health and other employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other risk management and compliance, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership and advocacy in these matters.  

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 health care, 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 health care, leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources including the following recent publications about related emerging developments:

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.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and 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 considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. The author reserves 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 constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, 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.

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 » | Academic medicine, Child Care, Childcare, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Cultural diversity, dei, Direct Primary Care, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, early childhood education, Education, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Federal Health Center, Government contractor, Grant recipients, Grants, Health Care, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, Heath Care Exchange, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage, OCR, OCR, Patients, Pharmaceudical, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Section 1557, University, Veterans Health | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

3/4 Dallas Bar Association Virtual Program Covers Disability Accommodation In Education, Facilities, Technology & Beyond

February 9, 2024

Disability accommodation presents many challenges for academic medical centers and other educators, as well as other health care, real estate, hospitality, technology, retail, state and local government, community and other organizations. 

The Dallas Bar Association invites interested attorneys, compliance and risk management, and other interested individuals to attend the March 4, 2024, virtual continuing education program on “Disability Accommodation In The Schools:  Education, Facilities, Technology and Beyond” hosted by the Education Law Study Group. The Program will be held virtually on Zoom from Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Public and private schools, community colleges, universities, and other educational organizations must evaluate and deliver a broad range of accommodations to meet their federal responsibility to provide individuals with disabilities access to and an equal opportunity to benefit from their educational and all other programs, services, facilities, and activities. While the applicable statutes may vary, many of the public and other accommodations applicable to educational organizations also apply to other public and private organizations. Meanwhile, the educational rights of students with disabilities affect many individuals, their families and others throughout their communities.

Attorneys Hans P. Graff and Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will discuss the scope, similarities, and differences in the requirements and procedures that govern the duties of schools to provide accommodation for individuals with disabilities in their classrooms and curriculum, social and other activities, facilities, technology, and other aspects of the student’s relationship and participation in the school.  The program is approved for 1.00 hours of MCLE Credit.

All attorneys, educational leaders, and others interested in this important topic are encouraged to attend. To register and for other details about attending the program in person or via Zoom, see here.

About the Presenters

Hans P. Graff has over 30 years of education law experience.  After leaving active duty as a Navy Judge Advocate in 1993, Hans entered private practice with a firm representing school districts throughout Texas.  In 1995, Hans began serving as an Assistant and later Deputy General Counsel for the Houston Independent School District. In that capacity, he represented the school district in matters involving the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, the Office of Special Education Programs, the Family Policy Compliance Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Additionally, he was responsible for representing Houston ISD in contested matters and hearings before the Texas Education Agency, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, the Texas Department of Agriculture, the State Board for Educator Certification, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, and the State Board of Nursing.  For more than 20 years, Hans annually reviewed and revised the HISD Code of Student Conduct and routinely provided advice on student discipline and student issues. 

In addition to his representation of public schools, Hans also brings decades of combined public and private experience advising and representing governmental entities in litigation at all levels.  He also routinely advised administrators and the HISD Police Department on potential Constitutional matters such as free speech, search and seizure, and matters related to child custody, DFPS conservatorship, and family law and represented Houston ISD in over 300 special education due process hearings. Hans also advises and represents a broad range of other clients in federal and state courts, as well as in state administrative hearings.

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 35 years of experience advising and representing public and private school districts, colleges, universities, academic medical centers, health care, early childhood education, insurance, employee benefits, financial services, technology, real estate, hospitality, sports, entertainment, sports, entertainment, community and a diverse range of other organizations and their leaders about disability accommodation and other federal and state Civil Rights, diversity, inclusion and other discrimination laws and standards; FERPA, HIPAA, and other privacy and data use and security; employment, employee benefits, and other workforce; health care; mental health; substance abuse and testing; student, workforce and community safety; procurement and contracting; Student Justice Courts and other discipline; workforce and vendor performance management and discipline; governance; internal controls and compliance; governmental and regulatory affairs; crisis preparedness, response, and resolution; and a broad range of other legal and operational concerns. 

Cindy has extensive experience advising and representing school districts, colleges, universities, academic medical centers, and other educational organizations and others extensively about special education, workforce, health care, and community disability assessment and accommodation. This experience is further informed by her experience as the parent of a child with developmental disabilities, as well as her past service in the leadership of an early childhood intervention agency.  She frequently conducts compliance audits and investigations and advises and represents school districts and other educational institutions as well as students, parents and caregivers, and others about IEP/Section 504 and other special education; ESL, student and staff discipline; facility, technology, transportation, and other public accommodation; mental health; and related concerns. Cindy also advises, represents, and defends educational and other organizations about government, contractor, and other audits, investigations, enforcement actions, and other dealings with the UIL and other sports, academic or other associations, the Department of Education, Medicaid and other Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC, Wage and Hour and other Department of Labor; Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, Internal Revenue Service, Texas Employment Agency, Texas Department of Health, Child Protective Services, Veterans Affairs, Department of Transportation, law enforcement and other government agencies and relations. She also has worked with Congress, legislatures, and federal and state regulators on education, disability, public health and safety, nutrition, workforce, employee benefits, compensation, Social Security and other public benefits, migration, transportation, tax, public finance, and a host of other legislative and regulatory issues through her client engagements and her regulatory affairs and public policy advocacy practice and leadership and involvement with PROJECT COPE; The Coalition on Patient Empowerment, the American Bar Association, and many other professional, civic and community organizations.

For More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. is honored to share information about this upcoming program. We hope this information is of interest to its readers. For more information about the Program, the Dallas Bar Association or its Education Law Study Group or other committees and activities, see the Dallas Bar Association Website.

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.

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.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

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.

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.

©2024 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Disability Discrimination, early childhood education, Education, Health Care, Public Schools, University | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

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

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.

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.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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.

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, Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health 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, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and managed care and employer benefits legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare, employer benefits, and insurance and financial services industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on HIPAA and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, 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.

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

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.

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.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

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

SCOTUS: Emotional Injury Damages Not Recoverable In Patient’s Private Rehab Act and ACA Disability Discrimination Lawsuit But Other Significant Liability Risks Remain

May 2, 2022

Today’s Supreme Court ruling that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce the disability discrimination and accommodation requirements of either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) prevents health care and other businesses subject to these requirements against the risk of large emotional injury awards in private actions for discrimination based on these laws. However, health care providers and other organizations subject to these requirements should use care to maintain compliance to avoid large actual damage awards to plaintiffs bringing private lawsuits, program exclusion, penalties or other governmental sanctions or both.

Cummings Supreme Court Ruling

The May 1, 2022 United States Supreme Court ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller authored by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts resulted from a suit that sought emotional distress damages brought by filed by a deaf and legally blind woman, Jane Cummings against Premier Rehab Keller after it denied her request that it provide an American Sign Language interpreter at her physical therapy sessions.  Premier Rehab told Cummings the therapist could communicate with her through other means,  Claiming Premier Rehab’s failure to provide an ASL interpreter constituted discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehab Act and Section 1557 of the ACA, Cummings sued Premier Rehab seeking various damages and other relief, including emotional distress damages.

The Supreme Court took notice that Premier Rehab was subject to these laws because its receipt of Medicare and Medicaid payments qualified as federal financial assistance triggering their applicability.

The Supreme Court affirmed the previous District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehab Act or the ACA.

The Supreme Court Majority based its decision on its finding that the Rehab Act and Act both are spending statutes that condition their offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate creating what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds.  Following previously established Supreme Court precedent for “private spending clause actions,” the Court ruled the emotional distress or other remedy is not available unless “the funding recipient is on notice that by accepting federal funding, it exposes itself to liability of that nature.”

To decide whether emotional distress damages are available under the Spending Clause statutes in this case, the Court therefore asked if a prospective funding recipient deciding whether to accept
federal funds would have had “clear notice” regarding that liability. Because the two statutes are silent on the availability of emotional injury damages, the Supreme Court followed prior precedent by looking to whether the emotional damages sought by Cummings were the type of damages traditionally available in suits for breach of contract so as to put Premier Rehab and other defendants on notice of their exposure to such damages from actions under the Rehab Act or ACA.  While acknowledging some exceptional circumstances where punitive damages may be recovered where “the conduct constituting the breach is also a tort for which punitive damages are recoverable,” the Court found such damages “are generally not available for breach of contract.” Concluding that the recognized exception to the general rule was insufficient to give funding recipients the requisite notice that they could face such damages. the Supreme Court ruled that funding recipients under the Rehab Act and the ACA “have not, merely by accepting funds, implicitly consented to liability for punitive damages.” 

To read the full Majority opinion and related consenting and dissenting opinions, see here. 

Liability Risks Remain Substantial Despite Cummings Ruling

While the Supreme Court’s ruling means private litigants cannot recover emotional injury damages in discrimination actions brought to enforce the Rehabilitation Act or the ACA, health industry and other organizations remain subject to other substantial liability risks for improper discrimination in violation of those laws.  Beyond recoveries for actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable by private litigants, covered organizations also can face substantial civil monetary penalties, program disqualification, in some instances even False Claims Act liability for billing in violation of program conditions of participation and other risks.  As federal agencies continue to make enforcement of these sanctions a priority, organization covered by either of these laws should use care to maintain appropriate compliance and risk management to ensure their ability to defend against any potential charges.  

For instance, HHS recently reaffirmed its continued commitment and prioritization of protecting disabled individuals against disability discrimination by its publication of its February 4, 2022 FAQs for Healthcare Providers during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Federal Civil Rights Protections for Individuals with Disabilities under Section 504 and Section 1557. Published to remind health care providers of their obligations under law and provide examples of applicability, HHS clarifies in that guidance that federal civil rights laws apply to health care providers, including those administering COVID-19 testing, medical supplies, and medication. These rules also apply to entities providing hospitalization, long-term care, intensive treatments, and critical care, such as oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilators. HHS also confirm that federal civil rights laws apply to state Crisis Standard of Care plans, procedures, and related standards for triaging scarce resources that hospitals are required to follow. HHS Issues New Guidance for Health Care Providers on Civil Rights Protections for People with Disabilities. See also New Guidance to Boost Accessibility and Equity in COVID-19 Vaccine Programs (December 22, 2021); HHS Takes Action to Prevent Discrimination and Strengthen Civil Rights (November 18, 2021); HHS and DOJ Issue Guidance on “Long COVID” and Disability Rights Under the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1557 (July 26, 2021); OCR Provides Technical Assistance to the State of Arizona to Ensure Crisis Standards of Care Protect Against Age and Disability Discrimination (May 25, 2021); HHS Announces Prohibition on Sex Discrimination Includes Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (May 10, 2021); New Legal Guidance and Resources to Ensure — and Expand — Access to COVID-19 Vaccines for People with Disabilities and Older Adults (April 13, 2021).

HHS’ guidance announcements all include a warning like the one from OCR Director Lisa J. Pino in the February 4, 2022 announcment that “OCR will continue our robust enforcement of federal civil rights laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination, including when Crisis Standards of Care are in effect.”

The current and historical enforcement record of HHS demonstrates the teeth behind this commitment. OCR has a long and continuing history of extracting substantial settlements or civil monetary penalties from health care or other organizations receiving Medicare, Medicaid or other federal funds administered by HSS for engaging in conduct OCR finds inconsistent with the ACA or Rehabilitation Act discrimination requirements. See, e.g., Settlement Agreement Reached with Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families to Address Discrimination Against Parents with Disabilities (March 30, 2022); Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Resolves Allegations of Discriminatory Practices Regarding Patients Needing Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (December 22, 2021); HHS Office for Civil Rights and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts Settle Disability Discrimination Case with Baystate Medical Center (November 17, 2021); HHS Office for Civil Rights and U.S. Attorney’s Office Settle Disability Discrimination Case with Backus Hospital (October 5, 2021); Rhode Island, Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Resolves Allegations of Discriminatory Practices Regarding Patients Needing Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (August 9, 2021).

These OCR guidance and enforcement actions and similar activities by other federal agencies send a strong message that OCR and other federal agencies will continue and expand their zealous investigation and enforcement of disability and other violations by health care providers and other public and private organizations covered by the Rehabilitation Act, the ACA or other federal discrimination and civil rights laws. Health care providers and others regulated by these federal discrimination laws should consider auditing the adequacy of existing practices, reaffirming their own and their business partners’ compliance, retraining workforce and taking other appropriate steps to help prevent illegal discrimination within their organization and to position their organization to respond and defend against potential discrimination investigations or charges.

For Additional Information Or Assistance

If you need have questions or need assistance with health, health or other insurance, employee benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help.  Longtime scribe for the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR and author of leading publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer regularly assists clients and provides input to Congress, OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and cybersecurity, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. 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.

Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications.  She also is a highly-sought out speaker on privacy and data security who serves on the planning faculty and speaks for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others.  You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here.  If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters, e-mail Ms. Stamer or call (214) 452-8297.  

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 reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.  

Important Information About This Communication

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.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and 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 circumstance 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 makes 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 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 of 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.

©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, ADA, air ambulance, Ambulatory care, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DME, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employment, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, OIG, Opiates, Outpatient, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Reimbursement, Section 1557 | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Biden-Harris Administration to Expand Vaccination Requirements for Health Care and Many Other Employers

September 9, 2021

All Medicare and Medicaid certified health care facilities, and a broad range of other employers must prepare to meet impending new federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates announced by the Biden-Harris Administration today.

According to today’s announcements all healthcare facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid or employing 100 or more employees will be required to ensure all staff are vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Biden-Harris Administration says the new health industry COVID-19 vaccine mandates will be implemented through emergency regulations to be issued in October.

According to today’s announcement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (“CMS”) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) is developing an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period that will be issued in October that will extend vaccine mandates originally announced last month for all Medicare and Medicaid participating nursing home workers to include hospitals, dialysis facilities, ambulatory surgical settings, and home health agencies, among others, as a condition for participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. See .

The announcement of the vaccine mandates for healthcare workers coincides with the Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of sweeping new vaccine mandates for all government workers, government contractors and employers employing more than 100 employees.

The two mandates will force most health care facilities to impose mask mandates for all staff in order to meet the requirement all staff be vaccinated.

CMS and CDC say the decision was based on the continued and growing spread of the virus in health care settings, especially in parts of the U.S. with higher incidence of COVID-19. They claim the action will protect patients of the 50,000 providers and over 17 million health care workers in Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.

According to the CDC, nursing homes with an overall staff vaccination rate of 75% or lower experience higher rates of preventable COVID infection. In CMS’s review of available data, the agency is seeing lower staff vaccination rates among hospital and End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) facilities. To combat this issue, CMS is using its authority to establish vaccine requirements for all providers and suppliers that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Vaccinations have proven to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 and are effective against the Delta variant.

In it’s announcement of the impending vaccination requirements, CDC urged health care facilities to prepare now to meet the new mandate in October. CMS expects certified Medicare and Medicaid facilities to act in the best interest of patients and staff by complying with new COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

CDC also urged any health care workers employed in these facilities who are not currently vaccinated are urged to begin the process immediately and facilities to use all available resources to support employee vaccinations, including employee education and clinics, as they work to meet new federal requirements.

While legal challenges to the mandate requirements are likely, most facilities that have not already adopted vaccine mandates are expected to adopt these mandates rather than risk losing eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and other sanctions.

Beyondprogram disqualification and attendant financial pressures, announcement of the new vaccine mandates adds vaccination to the list of safety safeguards that healthcare facilities as employers can expect to be required to enforce as part of the occupational safety rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”OSHA”).

OSHA already is sanctioning employers for violating COVID-19 related OSHA requirements. For instance, OSHA nailed Lakewood Resource and Referral Center Inc., dba Center for Education Medicine and Dentistry (CHEMED) with heavy fines for allegedly violating applicable COVID-19 safety guidelines in January, 2021.

In a July 23, 2021 citation letter, OSH proposes to fine CHEMED $273,064.00 for willfully violating OSHA by not providing a medical evaluation to determine each employee’s ability to use a N95 respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace to protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus while testing suspected COVID-19 individuals.

In addition to the proposed fine, the citation also orders CHEMED to take a series of corrective actions and to post notices in the workplace informing workers of the violation. 

Along with the CHEMED citation, OSH also cited a staffing agency contracted to provide nursing staffing to CHEMED, Homecare Therapies for also failing to conduct medical evaluations and fit tests. It received two violations and a proposed fine of $13,653.

In the face of these potential consequences, most covered health care facilities and other employers impacted by the mandate are likely to implement mandates unless and until these requirements are struct down by the courts or withdrawn.

Assuming the Administration follows appropriate procedures to adopt the rules, most legal commentators do not expect the legal challenges opposing the mandate orders to be successful in the courts particularly after the Supreme Court refused to overturn or hear arguments for overturning a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana University that refused to enjoin a vaccine mandate imposed by Indiana University as a condition of student or staff in person participation in classes or other activities.

While most healthcare and other covered businesses are not expected to challenge the rules, compliance us likely to trigger backlash from some unvaccinated workers strongly opposed to becoming vaccinated. Employers may find that some employees will resign their employment or take other tactics to avoid becoming vaccinated. Even those who elect to become vaccinated to retain their employment are likely to express opposition and dissatisfaction that could create liability exposures for the employers if it becomes a basis for retaliation claim.

Employers in Texas and certain other states that have adopted rules restricting or prohibiting vaccine, mask or other mandates also may face challenges based on the state rules.

In light of these and other uncertainties and challenges, Healthcare and Other or Employers generally should seek legal advice and assistance from legal counsel experienced with the relevant health care, labor and employment, privacy and other concerns.

More Information

This article is republished by permission of the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  To review the original work, see here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here 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. 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 specific information about the these 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.

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 30+ years working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

Most widely recognized for her work with health care, life sciences, insurance and data and technology organizations, she also has worked extensively with health plan and insurance, employee benefits, financial, transportation, manufacturing, energy, real estate, accounting and other services, public and private academic and other education, hospitality, charitable, civic and other business, government and community organizations. and their leaders.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending, and training domestic and international public and private business, charitable, community and governmental organizations and their leaders, employers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. As part of these involvements, she has worked, published and spoken extensively on these and other human resources, employee benefits, compensation, worker classification and other workforce and other services; insurance; health care; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other performance, risk management, compliance, public policy and regulatory affairs, and other operational concerns. 

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension  project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and provides insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications, public speaking and volunteer service with a diverse range of organizations including as Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Council Representative and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, past Region IV Chair and national Society of Human Resources Management Consultant Forum Board Member,  past Texas Association of Business BACPAC Chair, Regional Chair and Dallas Chapter Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and many others.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com,  on  Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or 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.

©2021 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Accreditation, ambulance, Ambulatory care, Anethesiology, Biological Warfare, CDC, Centers For Disease Control, Child Care, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, Covid, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, early childhood education, Emergency Care, Employer, Employment law, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HHS, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Laboratory tests, Life Sciences, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OSHA, Pandemic, Peer Review, Physician, Reimbursement, Union, vaccination | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer