Applicants in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Business Loan Programs (which include the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)) are generally subject to the affiliation rule in 13 CFR Section 121.301, subject to certain statutory waivers.  These rules provide that in determining a concern’s size, the SBA counts the employees of both the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit.  Based on this language, an employer would be required to count all employees (including those of foreign affiliates) in determining whether an entity has 500 or fewer employees for the PPP.

Yet in an Interim Final Rule, the SBA has indicated that an entity generally is eligible for the PPP if it, combined with its affiliates, has 500 or fewer employees whose principal place of residence is in the United States.  This language in the Interim Final Rule directly conflicts with the way employees are counted under the affiliation rules in 13 CFR Section 121.301.

We are hoping that the SBA will provide clarifying guidance, but it appears (at least for now) that domestic entities with a foreign affiliate(s) who previously thought they did not qualify for the PPP because of being required to count foreign employees may indeed be eligible for loans under the PPP.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act.  The Act largely stabilizes fragile industries, provides loans and tax credits to businesses tied to their retaining their workforces during these uncertain times, and offers additional unemployment relief to employees hurt by COVID-19.  But the CARES Act does more.  It significantly loosens the restrictions on loans and distributions from retirement plans, along with providing funding relief for defined benefit plans, giving employers important options to consider in these times of need.

These provisions are optional.  Employers are not required to implement these new features.  However, some aspects of the rules already may be captured in employer plans through the plans’ rollover contribution rules.  Further, plan recordkeepers have started proactively implementing these changes programmatically, providing employers only with brief “opt out” periods.  Thus, although retirement plans are not top of mind these days, employers should not deprioritize the review of plan-related communications from plan recordkeepers during this time, as they may contain important CARES Act details.

An overview of the key changes follows:

COVID-19 Related Distributions (CRD) – Sec. 2202(a) allows participants to have greater access to their retirement funds.  Qualified participants are no longer subject to the 10% excise tax applicable to early withdrawal if the withdrawal is a CRD of no more than $100,000.  The Act defines a CRD as:

  • Distributions made from an eligible retirement plan
    • IRA
    • Tax-qualified retirement plans
    • Tax-deferred annuities 403(b) plans
    • Section 457(b) governmental sponsored deferred compensation plans
  • During 2020
  • To a “qualified participant”:
    • Diagnosed with COVID-19
    • Spouse or dependent diagnosed with COVID-19 or
    • Furloughed, laid off, reduced hours or unable to work because of COVID-19

Plan Administrators may rely on the participant’s certification as satisfaction of the criteria for eligibility.  At the participant’s election, the CRD distribution either will:  (A) not be taxable to the participant, subject to the participant repaying the amount to an eligible retirement plan any time within the immediately following 3- year period in one or more payments; or (B) taxed ratably over a 3-year period.  Either way, these distributions will not be subject to mandatory 20% tax withholding but will be subject to 10% withholding unless voluntarily waived by the participant.

The devil is in the details here.  Additional guidance is needed to determine exactly how this option is to be effectuated, administered, and reported.  Further, employers will need to balance employees’ need for resources against the impact of depleting retirement savings in a down market, among other considerations.

Plan Loans – Sec. 2202(b) provides qualified participants with more plan loan flexibility.  The CARES Act doubles the amount available for plan loans taken during the 180-day period beginning on March 27, 2020, to the lesser of $100,000 or 100% of their vested account balance.  Qualified Participants must meet the same criteria for a loan as required for an early distribution above.

Sec. 2202(b) also provides qualified participants with loans in effect on or after the CARES Act enactment date of March 27, 2020, that would otherwise be due between March 27, 2020, and December 31, 2020 to suspend their loan repayment obligations for one year, akin to the rules involving suspensions for military leaves or unpaid leaves of absence.  The interest continues to accrue during the suspension period and the statutorily allowed maximum of 5 years for repayment does not include the year of suspension.

The CARES Act provisions affecting plan loans modify provisions in Section 72(p) of the Internal Revenue Code.  If the loan does not meet the requirements of Section 72(p) and the implementing regulations, it is treated as a distribution and thus taxable.  But a plan could always impose more rigorous requirements.

Thus, even though the CARES Act modifies these plan loan rules, employers, committees, or administrators can decide whether or not to implement them.  When making this decision, consideration should be given to factors such as a participants’ ability to repay loans of this size and whether payroll and recordkeeping systems are in place to administer suspended loan repayments.

Required Minimum Distributions (RMD) – Sec. 2203 allows plans to waive RMDs otherwise due for 2020 for those participants reaching age 72 during 2020.  This change is akin to the RMD suspension rules that date back to 2009.

Important Note About Plan Amendments:  Employers desiring to implement any of the CARES Act changes discussed above will need to amend their retirement plans, as needed, to incorporate these provisions with operational compliance in the interim.  The deadline for these plan amendments will not be earlier than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (i.e., December 31, 2022, for calendar year plans).

DOL authority to determine filing deadlines – Sec. 3607 extends the DOL’s authority to defer for up to 1 year any deadline date set by ERISA (which may include notices, filings, etc.) for reasons because of public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defined Benefit Plans’ Funding Rules for Single Employers – Sec. 3608 relaxes the minimum funding rules by extending the due date for all contributions (including quarterly contributions) originally due in 2020, until January 1, 2021.  The extended payment is adjusted for any interest accrued.  Plans also may use the adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) from the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, in applying the Internal Revenue Code Section 436 benefit restrictions.

Education Assistance – Sec. 2206 allows an employer to include payments to of an employee’s qualified education loan, principal, and interest, as part of education assistance under Internal Revenue Code Section 127.  The total allowed annual amount of $5,250 does not change.

Executive Compensation – Sec. 4004 addresses parameters to which companies must comply to receive certain emergency direct lending relief through the CARES Act.

We are available to help you evaluate whether any of these options will help your company achieve its business goals.  There are many factors to consider.

Background

On March 27, 2020, the Eighth Circuit in Sanzone v. Mercy Health, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9537 (8th Cir. March 27, 2020), ruled on several key issues on the “church plan” exemption to ERISA.  As background, beginning in 2013, plaintiff’s counsel filed ERISA class-action cases across the country challenging the application of ERISA’s “church plan” exemption to non-profit church-affiliated hospital organizations.   In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 137 S. Ct. 1652 (2017), that ERISA’s “church plan” exemption includes plans maintained by a church-affiliated organization whose principal purpose is the funding or administration of that plan. This meant that plans of non-profit church-affiliated hospitals, social service organizations, schools and the like could qualify for this exemption if they meet these statutory requirements.

Plaintiffs have also asserted the “church plan” exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Although the Advocate Supreme Court adopted a broad construction of the “church plan” exemption, it did not address this issue; subsequently, the U.S. Government filed a brief in Sanzone v. Mercy Health arguing the “church plan” exemption fully follows the First Amendment.

After Advocate, plaintiff’s counsel has continued to pursue cases challenging what is a “principal purpose organization,” including what is required to “maintain” a plan, and whether the “church plan” exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Sanzone v. Mercy Health Ruling

The Eighth Circuit addressed these issues in Sanzone.  The focus in Sanzone (as in other post-Advocate “church plan” cases) is on whether a hospital’s internal benefits committee constitutes a principal purpose organization. Consistent with rulings by other courts, the Eighth Circuit said yes, applying ordinary meanings to the statutory terms “maintain” and “organization.”

First, the Eighth Circuit looked to dictionary definitions to conclude “maintain” means “to continue something” or “to care for (property) for purposes of operational productivity.”  The court held the internal benefits committee met this definition, i.e., the committee was responsible for plan administration and interpretation, and had all discretionary authority to carry out the provisions of the plan.

Second, the Eighth Circuit again looked to dictionary definitions to conclude “organization” means “an administrative and functional structure” or “a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose.”   The court concluded the internal benefits committee met this definition, as it was a group of people who worked together for a shared purpose.

Finally, the Eighth Circuit addressed the Establishment Clause issue. The district court had dismissed this constitutional claim for lack of standing, i.e., for lack of an impending redressable injury from current plan underfunding.  The Eighth Circuit noted plaintiff’s claimed injury was broader than that and remanded for the district court to consider whether deprivation of ERISA protections would constitute a sufficient injury to confer standing.

Implications

The Eighth Circuit’s ruling that an internal benefits committee is sufficient to qualify for the “church plan” exemption follows rulings by other courts and provides helpful guidance to assist church-affiliated non-profits in maintaining this exemption for their plans. These cases provide examples of “best practices” that can assist church-affiliated organizations in complying with this exemption.

On the constitutional Establishment Clause challenge, the Eighth Circuit has rejected the no-standing ground adopted by other courts, which had allowed them to avoid ruling on the merits of this issue.  This means Sanzone may become the “test case” on this issue.  While resolving constitutional issues can be difficult to predict, based on our work defending other church-affiliated organizations on this issue, we believe that there are sound defenses to this constitutional challenge.

As previously discussed, the Ohio Department of Insurance (ODI) issued guidance pursuant to Governor Mike DeWine’s emergency declaration and order from March 9, 2020. Under Bulletin 2020-03, the ODI lifted certain restrictions for group health plans, limited premium increases, and expanded the rules for the continuation of coverage. Recently, the ODI issued FAQs to clarify its Bulletin.

In its FAQs, the ODI sought to clarify the types of applicable health plans affected by the Bulletin and provided much needed clarification relating to the 60-day grace period for premium payments.

Under the FAQs, the ODI explained the Bulletin applies only to fully insured employer group health plans and not self-insured plans, except Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements and several non-federal governmental plans. In addition to major medical plans, the Bulletin also applies to supplemental plans and limited duration plans issued to employers.

The ODI also addressed open issues relating to the deferral of premium payments. Under the FAQs, insurers must accommodate employers by extending premium payment due dates or waiving late or reinstatement fees in instances when employers are unable to make premium payments due to COVID-19-related disruptions. The recent guidance from the ODI does not change the rules for retroactive termination or rescission at the end of the grace period.

Perhaps most notably, the FAQs clarified the reference in the Bulletin to “insureds” when providing for the 60-day grace period for premium payments. The FAQs make it clear that the premium payment grace period applies to insurers providing coverage to employer group health plans regulated by the ODI. The ODI left it up to the individual employer as to whether or not to provide employees with a grace period to pay insurance premiums.

The IRS announced on March 27th via its website the extension of the initial remedial amendment period for Section 403(b) plans from March 31, 2020, to June 30, 2020.   It also extended the deadline for the second six-year remedial amendment cycle for pre-approved defined benefit plans from April 30, 2020, to July 31, 2020.

403(b) Plans

 Revenue Procedure 2019-39 includes a system of recurring remedial amendment periods for both Individually Designed and Pre-approved 403(b) plans.  The initial remedial amendment period began on the later of January 1, 2010, or the effective date of the plan and was to end as of March 31, 2020.  Cycle 2 for the 403(b) pre-approved plans was to begin April 1, 2020.  This announcement extends the initial remedial amendment period end date to June 30, 2020, and the beginning date for Cycle 2 to July 1, 2020.  The IRS states it will issue more guidance related to the extension.

Defined Benefit Plans

Announcement 2018-05 originally determined April 30, 2020, as the end of the second six-year remedial amendment cycle for defined benefit plan.  The website announcement also extends this deadline from April 30, 2020, to July 31, 2020.  The IRS states it will consider an employer who adopts a pre-approved defined benefit plan approved based on the 2012 Cumulative List by July 31, 2020, to have timely adopted a plan under the second six-year remedial amendment cycle as described in Revenue Procedure 2016-37.

This extension of the Defined Benefit Cycle 2 remedial amendment period delays the beginning date for the third six-year cycle remedial amendment cycle to August 1, 2020, but the end date remains the same, January 1, 2025.  It does not change the beginning of the submission period for advisory opinion letter applications for the Cycle 3 remedial amendment period, which remains August 1, 2020, ending July 31, 2021.

Should you have questions about plan document restatements or the IRS’s announcement, please contact us for assistance.  We will, of course, keep you updated as the IRS issues additional guidance.

As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we are observing all sorts of never-before-seen changes in the fully-insured group health plan space.  Many insurers are liberally waiving their normal rules to accommodate the continuation of coverage to employers and employees in their time of need.  Although the accommodations are welcome, employers need to exercise caution before allowing employees to take full advantage of the changes.  There are ERISA and tax law implications to consider that are often left out of the insurer announcements related to coverage enhancements, and employee communications of legal mandates are key.

Special Enrollment Event

Some insurers are treating the COVID-19 pandemic as a special enrollment event and are permitting employers to enable employees to enroll in group health plan coverage during a limited mid-year window. However, for employers that offer group medical plan benefits to employees on a pre-tax basis, the tax rules under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code need to be considered.

           The Current Tax Law:  Section 125 does not permit employees to change their coverage elections due to a pandemic.  Instead, the current tax law requires a permissible election change event to allow a change to pre-tax benefit elections, and the employer’s Section 125 plan needs to include that election change rule.

Permissible election change events, which have been firmly established by the IRS for years, include employment changes, such as a commencement of or return from an unpaid leave of absence or a change in the worksite, but only if the change is because of and corresponds with a change in status that affects eligibility for coverage under an employer’s plan.  This established definition might fit for the COVID-19 related changes some employees are experiencing, but not all.  Insurers are proposing to allow even active employees who have experienced no employment change to enroll in coverage.

The Section 125 plan election change rules also allow changes in the case of “significant” coverage changes.  However, absent further guidance, it is unclear whether the IRS would view the group health plan coverage changes mandated by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act or other future legislation as “significant.”

           Actions for Employers:  If the Section 125 regulations serve as an impediment to what an employer wants to do, it is possible to implement coverage elections outside of Section 125 plans.  This means that employees who enroll in a plan during the special COVID-19 enrollment window would need to pay the employee portion of the premiums for coverage with after-tax dollars.  Before pressing “go,” note:

  • Many payroll systems are not set up to accommodate both pre-tax and post-tax group medical plan deductions. This question must be resolved in consultation with payroll teams or providers before this opportunity is offered.
  • Most employees do not expect their group medical insurance premiums will be subject to taxation. Communicating with employees about the taxation aspects of this enrollment decision at the same time the opportunity is presented to employees is key to setting employee expectations and avoiding future conflict.
  • Other employee benefit plan documents, including wrap plans, need to be reviewed and amended, as needed, to effectuate this unique coverage offering.

Waiver of Eligibility Conditions

Other insurers are waiving active service and hours of service eligibility conditions.  However, remember that, under ERISA, the terms of the plan control benefit entitlements.  Thus, even though insurance carriers will not enforce their rights to cancel coverage when the plan terms are not followed, employers still need to be vigilant in ensuring that their plan documents reflect the coverage being offered.  Employers should seek amendments to policies and plans to reflect the leniencies extended by insurers.  And employers should seek written confirmation (including detailed definitions of important terms such as “furlough” and “temporary leave of absence”) of any changes in an insurer’s eligibility conditions.

Answers to Your Questions

Our employee benefits team is on the front lines of handling these unique issues presented by COVID-19 responses taken by employers, insurers, and government regulators.  We help employers understand the legal issues and develop strategies to meet changing business needs.  Please contact us if we can help.

The Ohio Department of Insurance (ODI) has issued guidance pursuant to Governor Mike DeWine’s emergency declaration and March 9, 2020, order directing state agencies to implement procedures consistent with recommendations from the Department of Health. The ODI guidance applies to insurance companies, multiple employer welfare arrangements, non-federal governmental health plans, and other entities subject to the jurisdiction of the ODI.

Under Bulletin 2020-03, group health plan eligibility restrictions were lifted, premium increases limited, and rules for continuation of coverage expanded. Insurers must allow employers to continue coverage for employees who would otherwise be ineligible as a result of a reduction in hours worked. Further, any “active at work” provision will not operate to limit eligibility for coverage under a group health policy.

As for premium rates, insurers are prohibited from increasing premiums based on a reduction in enrollment due to COVID-19. Insurers also are mandated to provide insureds with the option to defer premiums for up to 60 days, interest-free.

For health plans with at least one active employee enrolled, all former employees are eligible for continuation coverage under COBRA (applicable to employers with 20 or more employees) or for 12 months under the Ohio continuation rules for smaller employers. For employees that lose coverage, there will also be a special enrollment period and waiver of certain enrollment procedures when coverage is purchased on the federal exchange.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions.

With the combination of our nation’s response to COVID-19 and the resultant economic downturn, employers of all sizes face the moral and financial dilemma of evaluating employee headcounts while businesses are grappling with the reality of the current situation.  Many employers are considering furloughs, or other types of approved leaves of absences, to reduce immediate payroll, hoping the downturn lasts for a period of a few weeks instead of months. Other employers are opting to implement systemic reductions in the workforce and let employees go.  The focus of this article is to highlight that different employment actions produce different employee benefits consequences that must also be part of any employment decision.

No general rules apply to every situation, as all circumstances are somewhat unique.  Below is a list of several key issues employers must consider as they evaluate their employee benefits programs with an eye toward reducing payroll costs:

  • Don’t assume coverage continues during leaves or furloughs or automatically ends immediately upon termination of employment. Plan terms typically dictate whether active coverage can continue during short-term leaves of absence, whether paid or unpaid, and many plans have minimum hour requirements to maintain active coverage.  Employers that expand coverage for ineligible employees outside the terms of the plan or policy without consent from the insurer or stop loss carrier face significant financial exposure.
  • COBRA continuation coverage (or state continuation coverage, if applicable) generally must be offered for all group health plans when there is a loss of coverage because of a termination of employment or reduction in hours. An increase in the employee’s share of the premium because of his or her reduction in hours (including to zero, as in a furlough) is a loss of coverage for this purpose.
  • The Affordable Care Act employer penalty should be considered. Terminating the group health plan coverage for an employee when a leave or furlough begins may cause an ACA penalty for failing to offer coverage to 95% of full-time employees.  And the coverage offered must remain affordable to avoid an ACA penalty, which may require a continued or increased employer subsidy, whether on active or COBRA coverage.
  • Plan for how employees will keep paying monthly premiums/contributions to maintain coverage during any leave period. Failure to pay monthly premiums could cause coverage to lapse without COBRA protections for health, dental and vision plans, invalidate future Health FSA and Dependent Care FSA claim reimbursements and could also trigger obligations to reinstate life and other disability plan arrangements only through evidence of insurability.  Arrangements should be made in advance with employees about how they will keep contributing to any allowable coverage during leave, whether through a COBRA vendor, ACH payment from a personal checking account or by mail.
  • Before taking any employment actions, the employer should first determine whether it maintains or maintained any formal or informal severance plan or policy that provides a precedent for what benefits may be offered to terminated employees.
  • 401(k) and other retirement plan implications must be considered. A reduction in force, layoff or furlough could cause a “partial termination” under a 401(k) or other retirement plan rules, which triggers 100% vesting for affected participants.   Review hardship and other distribution provisions, and make sure plan loan provisions are reviewed and followed so that “deemed distribution” consequences may be avoided.  Service credit for vesting and employer contributions can also still be required during leaves or breaks in service.  “Safe harbor” match or other fixed contribution provisions should be suspended only after considering the potential ramifications and taking the required implementation measures. Employers should be vigilant in maintaining the same payroll deposit schedule for employee salary deferrals.
  • Employers should review all deferred compensation agreements and other employment agreements for any leave or termination impact. Such agreements may have short-term bonus payouts or other incentive payment obligations due to any “termination without cause” or other “separation from service” that cannot be altered without a review of all implications of Section 409A of the Tax Code. These rules generally prohibit employees from making salary deferral election changes mid-year (including canceling elections) and/or changing the timing of payments.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of all issues to consider before final decisions are made related to any short-term or long-term reduction in employee payroll.  Each employer must evaluate the issues to find the best options during these challenging times.  Please contact any of our Employee Benefit attorneys to help evaluate the issues based on your specific factual circumstances and plan designs.

With an alarming number of American workers lacking adequate retirement savings, California and a handful of other states began implementing state-sponsored retirement savings programs.  The CalSavers Retirement Savings Program (CalSavers) was first launched as a pilot program in 2018 and then expanded to all eligible employers in the state in July 2019 in order to provide employees access to a retirement savings program without the administrative complexity for employers. CalSavers requires employers who do not offer employer-sponsored retirement plans to its employees, such as a 401(k) plan, to automatically enroll their employees into the CalSavers plan and to remit payroll deductions to the CalSavers trust for each employee who does not affirmatively opt-out of participation in the plan.  More…

Employers are grappling with employee benefit issues in response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”).  Efforts are being made to pave the way for widespread testing by eliminating cost barriers such as deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or High Deductible Health Plan restrictions to ensure employees and their families are proactively being diagnosed once symptoms present, to ensure proper care management for the participant, and to assist in preventing the spread of the virus.  Read on for more information about the changes that might impact your employer-provided health insurance and what you need to do to comply in this rapidly changing environment:

Remove Barriers to Coverage

  • Fully-Insured Plans:  Several states (including Washington, New York, California, Vermont, Maryland, Nevada, and Oregon) have issued mandates directing that fully-insured health plans regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care immediately reduce cost-sharing to zero for all medically necessary screening and testing for COVID-19.
  • Self-Insured Plans:  Many claims administrators are offering free testing for COVID-19 to self-funded plans, so employers sponsoring self-insured plans should check with their administrator regarding the voluntary waiver of COVID-19 testing costs.  Stop-loss policies usually have (advance) notice requirements that apply when the plan terms are changed, so consider notifying your stop loss carrier of any changes in coverage/benefits.
  • High Deductible Health Plans:  Last week the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2020-15 to confirm that until further guidance is issued, a High Deductible Health Plan (“HDHP”) still complies with HSA contribution guidelines if it provides health benefits associated with testing for and treatment of COVID-19 without a participant first satisfying the deductible.  The payment for such tests and treatment of COVID-19 under the HDHP can be considered “preventive care.”  More…
  • In Vitro Testing: The Families First Coronavirus Act (R. 6201) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in the early hours of March 14, 2020.  The bipartisan legislation, which currently applies only to employers of 500 or less, provides a number of important changes, but also makes special provisions for in vitro testing.  If enacted as written, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered health plan (as defined in the Affordable Care Act)) would be required to provide coverage (without regard to any deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance) for approved in vitro diagnostic products for the detection of COVID–19.   Coverage would also be required for certain items and services furnished to an individual during health care provider office visits, urgent care center visits, and emergency room visits that relate to administration of an in vitro diagnostic product for the detection of COVID–19.  More…  

Employer Action Required

  • Plan Amendment:  A plan amendment is likely required to reflect any changes in coverage.  However, given the urgency of the current situation, it is likely allowable to offer expanded coverage before adopting a plan amendment.  Employee communications will be essential to keep your employee population up to date regarding available coverage.
  • Privacy Law Requirements: Employers should remember that even during the current pandemic, HIPAA privacy rules still apply to “covered entities” such as medical providers or employer-sponsored group health plans regarding individually identifiable health information.  While employers who receive information outside of the context of their group health plan are not subject to HIPAA’s restrictions regarding such information, health information should generally be treated as confidential as a range of employment law issues, including under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and other federal and state laws might apply.  More…  

Additional Ways to Help Employees

  • Leave Donation Programs: Employers can provide leave-sharing arrangements that permit employees to donate PTO, leave, or vacation time in an employer-sponsored leave bank for use by other employees adversely affected by an event declared a major disaster or emergency by the President.  More…
  • Cash Payments to Affected Employees: Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that a tax-free disaster relief payment can be made in cash to any individual if the payment is a “qualified disaster relief payment.”  More…

This is a dynamic situation, and the laws are changing quickly.  Check for legal updates regularly, and contact Natalie Nathanson or your local Jackson Lewis attorney for more information.