If you are near Anaheim, CA, you don’t want to miss CH&LA’s annual seminar on the new laws affecting hoteliers in 2017.
Our very own Todd Seiders, Director of Risk Managment, will be presenting at the seminar.
Register today at CH&LA
Register today at CH&LA
“…The suit claims that Kring illegally received $7,250 in contributions from entities and people connected to Oâ€™Connell, including Anaheim Park Place Inn, Orangewood, LLC, Â Stovallâ€™s Inn, LLC and members of the Support Our Anaheim Resort (SOAR) advisory board, among others…”
A $158 million hotel tax subsidy — one that triggered a contentious Anaheim City Council split and a wave of political activism — is once again the target of a lawsuit that, if successful, could invalidate the deal.
For more:Â http://bit.ly/1spS9XL
“…employers are relieved that federal officials are delaying penalties for businesses that fail to provide health insurance for their workers, but they say the reprieve does not clear up worries that the requirement is too complicated and too costly…the hotel has 70 employees, many of whom do not buy the insurance coverage the hotel offers. The Ramada Inn pays half the cost of the insurance. Business leaders said the delay was inevitable…(employers) have not seen this big a change this ill-defined this close to the deadline…the question still is how this works, what we have to pay and what are the options…it’s just in terms of whether (employers are) going to be able to understand it…”
Businesses with more than 50 employees were to face escalating tax penalties if they did not provide workers with acceptable health insurance coverage by January 2014 as required in the national health overhaul law. President Barack Obama’s administration announced Tuesday it was pushing the deadline back to January 2015 because of confusion about the requirement.
The one-year reprieve is only for businesses. Individuals still must have insurance by 2014 or face penalties, and new online marketplaces called exchanges will help them find coverage, often at subsidized rates.
â€œ…the defendantâ€™s hotels, which are places of public accommodation, have barriers to use of the pools…the pools do not have a fixed pool lift or other acceptable means of entry for disabled persons, notwithstanding that such modifications are readily achievable…the existence of barriers to use the pool at the defendantâ€™s hotels deterred the plaintiff from staying at the defendantâ€™s hotels, the suit says.â€
G6 Hospitality Property LLC is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it is not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The litigation, initiated May 20 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas by plaintiff Dana Bowman, claims G6, doing business as Motel 6, failed â€œto design, construct and/or own or operate hotel facilities that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, disabled people.â€
Bowman, a retired Army sergeant first class, asserts that he called the respondent prior to visiting Houston on business to see if its hotelsâ€™ pools had some means of access for the disabled such as himself only to be told there were none, adding he â€œindependentlyâ€ verified the absence of a pool lift at the facilities.
According to the original petition, the respondent â€œdoes not have a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make all of its hotels fully accessible to and independently usable by disabled people.â€
A jury trial is requested.
Disability discrimination also occurs when a covered employer or other entity treats an applicant or employee less favorably because she has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is controlled or in remission) or because she is believed to have a physical or mental impairment that is not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if she does not have such an impairment).
The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer (“undue hardship”).
The law also protects people from discrimination based on their relationship with a person with a disability (even if they do not themselves have a disability). For example, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee because her husband has a disability.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued four revised documents on protection against disability discrimination, pursuant to the goal of the agency’s Strategic Plan to provide up-to-date guidance on the requirements of antidiscrimination laws.
The documents address how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to applicants and employees with cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities. These documents are available on the agency’s website at “Disability Discrimination, The Question and Answer Series,” http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm.
“Nearly 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or epilepsy, and more than 2 million have an intellectual disability,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Many of them are looking for jobs or are already in the workplace. While there is a considerable amount of general information available about the ADA, the EEOC often is asked questions about how the ADA applies to these conditions.”
In plain, easy-to-understand language, the revised documents reflect the changes to the definition of disability made by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that make it easier to conclude that individuals with a wide range of impairments, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities, are protected by the ADA. Each of the documents also answers questions about topics such as: when an employer may obtain medical information from applicants and employees; what types of reasonable accommodations individuals with these particular disabilities might need; how an employer should handle safety concerns; and what an employer should do to prevent and correct disability-based harassment.
[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/57192729 w=500&h=281]
The January 31, 2013 ADA pool lift compliance deadline is fast approaching. Petra Risk Solutionsâ€™ Loss Control Specialist, Â Marco Johnson, offers a P3 Hospitality Risk Update â€“ â€˜ADA Pool Lift Updateâ€™ – to help clear up some of the confusion about the requirements of this new ADA law.
P3 (Petra Plus Process) is the Risk Management Division of Petra Risk Solutions â€“ Americaâ€™s largest independent insurance brokerage devoted exclusively to the hospitality marketplace.
For more information on Petra and P3 visit petrarisksolutions.com or call 800.466.8951.
“…the Medicare Secondary Payer and Workersâ€™ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act of 2012…deals only with workersâ€™ compensation claims, and seeks to establish clear and consistent rules for workersâ€™ compensation set-asides for claimants covered by Medicare…”
“…The Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act…deals with issues related to the Medicare Secondary Payment Act. Specifically, it deals with mandates for providing timely information on conditional payments, penalties and statutes of limitations when claims are reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by insurers and self-insured and third-party payers on no-fault auto-insurance claims, workersâ€™ compensation claims, and claims under liability insurance…”
Insurance and related industries are seeking to win support in the waning days of the current Congress for two pieces of legislation dealing with payment of injured worker claims to people whose primary insurance is Medicare. Officials of both the American Insurance Association and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America are urging action on the bills this year.
Nathaniel Wienecke, PCI senior vice president, Wednesday asked officials of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee if it could act on the bill this year.
Currently, workersâ€™ compensation claims that overlap with Medicare coverage are subject to lengthy, cumbersome review by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish the proper â€œset-sideâ€ coverage amounts for future medical expenses, according to PCI officials.
For more:Â http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2012/12/14/insurance-reps-push-for-action-on-medicare-seconda?t=commercial
Â “…the California Department of Industrial Relations’ (DIR) Division of Occupational Safety and Health(commonly referred to as Cal/OSHA) is urging employers to protect outdoor workers from heat illness and allow for new workers to adjust to changes in weather (also known as acclimatization)…”
Cal/OSHA’s website provides employers with a Heat Illness Prevention e-toolÂ for reference.
Under California’s first-in-the-nation heat illness prevention standard, employers with outdoor workers are required to establish and implement emergency procedures, and provide training on heat illness prevention to all workers. Every outdoor workplace must have drinking water for workers â€“ at least one quart per hour per employee â€“ and shade for recovery and rest periods. Shade must be provided when temperatures are above 85 degrees, and be available at employee request at any temperature. Employers are also required to train employees to properly identify heat illness symptoms.
The heat illness prevention standard was strengthened two years ago to include a high heat provision that must be implemented by five different industries when temperatures reach 95 degrees. These procedures include observing employees, closely supervising new employees, and reminding all employees throughout the shift to drink water. The specified industries include agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction and transportation or delivery of agricultural products, construction material or other heavy material. However, all employers are advised to take additional precautions during periods of high heat.
Some will face stiff cost increases as they must extend coverage to employees who are not eligible for coverage currently. In other cases, the coverage they provide, such as through what are known as mini-med plans, will not meet 2014 standards. That includes a ban on annual dollar limits on essential benefits as laid down by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.