UPDATE - COBRA Subsidy: DOL Issues Updated Model COBRA Notices and Other Guidance

The following EBG Client Alert should be of interest to all Florida employers

by Joan A. Disler and Ray Kaplan

As we advised you in our Client Alert that was issued on December 24, 2009 ("UPDATE: Cobra Subsidy: What it Means for Employers Now"), President Obama signed into law the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 (the "Act"), which, among other things, extended and expanded certain provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA") pertaining to premium assistance for benefits under the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"). The Department of Labor ("DOL") has issued the following updated information, of which we wanted to make you aware:

Economic Stimulus Projects: Are Prevailing Wage Rates Required?

The following is a reprint of a client alert authored by EBG attorneys Evan Spelfogel and Doug Weiner.  It should be of interest to Florida employers that are considering submitting bids for contracts funded by the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act ("ARRA"). 

For many employers, the prospect of gaining new revenue from contracts funded by the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act ("ARRA") is the answer to economic prayers in these difficult times. However, bids for these projects must take into consideration the likelihood that "prevailing wage and benefit rates," which are substantially higher than market (eg., non-union) rates for comparable work, may have to be paid to employees working on the project.

Careful wage and benefit cost planning is required before submitting a bid funded by the ARRA. Considerations include:

1. State vs. Federal Prevailing Rate Obligations: Several states have legislation establishing prevailing wage and benefit requirements that differ from federal rate obligations. State prevailing rate laws can differ from federal requirements by providing greater (or lesser) wages and benefits compared to federal law, or by including (or precluding) certain projects from prevailing rate requirements (for example, state law may not require prevailing rates for affordable housing projects). Which standards apply?

2. Projects "Assisted" by the Federal Government: Under the ARRA projects "assisted" by federal stimulus dollars trigger federal prevailing rate requirements. Has the project under consideration for bid been assisted, or will it be assisted even indirectly, by federal stimulus funds?

3. Projects Assisted "In Whole or in Part": What if a construction project is being developed, and it does not need ARRA dollars to make it viable. However, the project proponent wants to accept ARRA weatherization funds to make the construction more energy efficient. Does the acceptance of ARRA weatherization dollars trigger federal obligations solely for the weatherization aspects of the project, or for the entire project? Likewise, assume a highway project is being built in phases, the first phase is funded with non-federal dollars. Now, a community wants to access ARRA stimulus monies to extend the highway. Does the acceptance of ARRA monies for the extension federalize the entire highway, so as to trigger prevailing wage and benefit requirements for the workers constructing the non-federal phase of the project?

4. Specific Prevailing Rate Requirements for Energy Efficiency Projects: Employers should take note that the ARRA has a separate prevailing rate provision that specifically governs renewable energy and electric power transmission projects.

5. ARRA Dollars Passing Through State Budgetary Processes: When a state accepts federal ARRA dollars and processes such dollars through the state's own budgetary, grant, or loan procedures, are those funds still considered federally assisted for purposes of prevailing rate requirements?

Many employers who never considered themselves federal contractors may become subject to the prevailing rate requirements of the ARRA. State and local officials and prime contractors may not properly notify prospective bidders that prevailing rates must be paid. However, the failure of the contracting agency or prime contractor to give proper notice may not relieve an employer on the job of the independent legal obligations of the ARRA. Employers that under bid without realizing their prevailing rate obligations may find themselves unexpectedly losing money rather than gaining new sources of profitable revenue.

Provisions of the Stimulus Bill Affecting H-1B Visas

Recently the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”), organization of which I am a member, prepared a list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) about the H-1B provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or the "Stimulus Bill") and its impact on H-1B employers. For the benefit of our blog’s readership I am including portions of this list, however, some of the FAQs do not have clear answers:

What Provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Affects H-1B Employers?

Section 1611 of the ARRA, called the Employ American Workers Act, was added to the stimulus bill by Senators Sanders (I-Vt.) and Grassley (R-Iowa) to limit certain banks and other financial institutions from hiring H-1B workers unless they had offered positions to equally- or better-qualified US workers, and to prevent banks from hiring H-1B workers in occupations in which they had laid off US workers.

What Companies Are Covered by the EAWA?

The EAWA places new restrictions on H-1B petitions filed by any company that receives funding under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343, also known as the "TARP Bill") or that receives funding under Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 342 et seq., authorizing the Federal Reserve’s “Discount Window” for short-term, secured loans to financial institutions and other companies). Note that companies receiving funds under the AARA (the “stimulus bill”) itself, such as engineering companies that contract with states to build the transportation infrastructure funded by the bill, are NOT subject to any restrictions - only banks and other companies receiving TARP money, or credit directly from the Federal Reserve System, are covered.

How Do I Find Out Whether An Employer Has Received Funds Triggering Application of EAWA?

Recipients of funding under the TARP program are disclosed publicly by the US Treasury, and weekly reports are available on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act page of the Treasury Department website. Recipients of funding through the Federal Reserve’s Discount Window program are not disclosed to the public, as explained at in the FAQs on the Federal Reserve Discount Window webpage. See question #9. Generally, any state or federally regulated financial institution is eligible for such funding, though under the Federal Reserve’s emergency authority, non-bank companies such as AIG have been allowed to access short term, low-interest loans through the Discount Window.

What Restrictions Are Placed On Covered Employers?

The EAWA provides that it will be unlawful for any recipient of funding to “hire” an H-1B nonimmigrant unless the recipient has complied with the extra Labor Condition Application attestations previously imposed on “H-1B dependent employers.” These extra attestations are:

that the employer has, prior to filing the H-1B petition, taken good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the H-1B worker is sought, offering a wage that is at least as high as that required under law to be offered to the H-1B worker. The employer must also attest that, in connection with this recruitment, it has offered the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified for the position.

that the employer has not laid off, and will not lay off, any U.S. worker in a job that is essentially equivalent to the H-1B position in the area of intended employment of the H-1B worker within the period beginning 90 days prior to the filing of the H-1B petition and ending 90 days after its filing.

Are “Exempt” H-1B Employees Covered By The New Restrictions?

All H-1B workers “hired” by a covered employer between February 17, 2009 and February 16, 2011 are covered by the EAWA. Even though the H-1B dependent employer rules provide an exemption from the extra attestations for H-1B workers who possess master’s degrees or who receive wages of at least $60,000, the EAWA makes this exemption unavailable to TARP recipients.

Are H-1B Extensions for Existing H-1B Employees of Covered Employers Subject to the New Restrictions?

The term “hire” is defined in the statute as permitting “a new employee to commence a period of employment.” Therefore, the new restrictions do not appear to apply to H-1B extension petitions filed on behalf of current H-1B employees of covered employers. However, neither USCIS nor DOL have issued implementation guidance or regulations yet, so it is not completely certain that they will take the same view.

Are H-1B Changes of Status for Existing Employees in Other Nonimmigrant Statuses (F-1, TN, L-1B) Subject to the New Restrictions?

As indicated above, the term “hire” is defined in the statute as permitting “a new employee to commence a period of employment.” Therefore, it would appear that the new restrictions do not apply to H-1B petitions filed on behalf of current employees of covered employers, if those employees are currently employed in another nonimmigrant status such as F-1, TN or L-1B. Furthermore, it should be noted that the I-9 Form is completed at the time the employee is hired, not at the time of any change in status. However as previously noted, neither USCIS nor DOL have issued implementation guidance or regulations yet, so it is not completely certain that they will take the same view.

Are H-1B Amendments or Extensions of Stay for New Hires Already in H-1B Status for Another Employer Subject to the New Restrictions?

This issue will need to be resolved by USCIS and DOL in implementing regulations or procedures; however, new employees seeking to transfer their H-1B from another employer to a covered employer will likely be considered to be a “new employee.”

When Does the Law Go into Effect, and How Long Is It Effective?

The Employ American Workers Act became effective upon the stimulus bill's enactment, February 17, 2009. It is important to note that the law will remain effective for only two years after its enactment. Thus, it will sunset on February 16, 2011.