February Bulletin 2014 by MSEC

EMPLOYMENT LAW

SURVEYS

HUMAN RESOURCES

! g ue. ue oin iss ss e g 014 e I ill b il 2 or w pr M tin e A 1 ulle or th e B ic f Th on tr ec el

FEBRUARY 2014

TRAINING

Part XVII: Proposed Amendments to Excepted Benefits Diane Waters, Employment Law Services

Page 1 Proposed Amendments to Excepted Benefits Page 2 Public Employers: Arizona State Employees Sue for Equal Benefits, Gain Class Designation Page 3 NLRB Finds Handbook Policy Unlawful You Asked: Should I Have a Probationary Period for New Hires? Page 4 Your 2014 ACA To-Do List Performance Appraisals: Crisis or Opportunity? Page 5 Pros and Cons of Performance Appraisal Methods Page 6 Survey News Page 7 Economic Perspective

On December 20, 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Labor issued proposed regulations amending “excepted benefits.” The four categories of excepted benefits are non-health coverage, limited excepted benefits, non-coordinated excepted benefits, and supplemental coverage issued under a separate policy. The proposed regulations address limited excepted benefits and provide guidance on how they can qualify as excepted benefits. In general, the portability and non-discrimination requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as well as most of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), do not apply to excepted benefits. Several ACA provisions have made it more difficult to offer limited scope benefits under existing regulations. The proposed regulations explain the interaction between the ACA and excepted benefits and make it easier for certain limited scope plans to qualify.

Limited Scope Dental and Vision Plans Existing regulations consider dental and vision benefits to be excepted benefits if they are limited in scope (i.e., only cover treatment for mouth and eyes) and are either: • provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; or • are otherwise not integral parts of a group health plan. While only insured coverage may qualify under the first test, both insured and selfinsured coverage may qualify under the

second test. Benefits are not an integral part of a plan if participants have the right to refuse coverage, but if they elect coverage, they must pay an additional premium or contribution. Following the ACA’s enactment, employers raised concerns that self-insured plans should not be required to charge a nominal contribution to qualify as excepted benefits (since insured plans did not have this requirement). Additionally, consumer groups were concerned that eligibility for affordable dental and vision plans that did not qualify as excepted benefits could make individuals ineligible for premium tax credits through the Exchanges. The proposed regulations eliminate the requirement that individuals pay a premium or other contribution for limited scope dental and vision coverage to be an excepted benefit. Accordingly, limited scope dental and vision benefits will qualify as long as participants have a right not to elect coverage.

Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) EAPs are employer-sponsored programs that address circumstances that might adversely affect an employee’s work and health (e.g., substance abuse). EAPs that provide benefits for medical care generally are subject to HIPAA and most provisions of the ACA, unless they meet the criteria for being an excepted benefit. The proposed regulations would treat an EAP as an excepted benefit if: • the EAP does not provide “significant benefits in the nature of medical care;” Continued on page 2

Denver 303.839.5177 Scottsdale 602.955.7558 Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 Fort Collins 970.223.4107 Fax 303.861.4403 Toll Free 800.884.1328

Arizona State Employees Sue for Equal Benefits, Gain Class Designation Lorrie Ray, Membership Development On December 23, 2013, a federal judge certified a class of lesbian and gay Arizona state employees for their challenge to the state’s action in eliminating employer-provided health care coverage for same-sex partners. Diaz v. Brewer (D. Ariz. 2013). In 2009, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation limiting family health insurance coverage to “spouses” under state law, and restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The law eliminated family health care coverage for lesbian and gay state employees’ committed same-sex partners and their partners’ children. Gay and lesbian state employees filed a class action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, asserting that the law denied them equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The employees assert that by tying health care coverage eligibility to marriage, when gay and lesbian couples are barred from marrying, the law discriminates based on sexual orientation and sex in relation to the sex of their committed partners without any adequate justification. They also argue that the law denies them equal compensation by not allowing them family coverage, while heterosexual employees with legally recognized spouses receive family coverage and, therefore, are paid more by the state. On July 23, 2010, the Arizona District Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from denying such limits. For this ruling to impact the entire group of protesting employees, all affected gay and lesbian employees had to be certified as a clearly defined

class. On December 23, 2013, Judge John W. Sedwick defined the class as, “All lesbian and gay employees of the State who are now, or will in the future, be eligible under the criteria specified in former Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-5-101 to obtain State health insurance benefits for their committed same-sex partners and their partners’ dependents.” Currently the class includes 230 employees. The class is expected to grow and include lesbian and gay state employees who qualify for family coverage but do not currently receive it, those who do not currently qualify for family coverage but will qualify in the future, and those who may enter into committed relationships with same-sex partners during their state employment and later qualify for family coverage.

Continued from cover

• EAP benefits are not coordinated with benefits under another group health plan; • the EAP is provided free of charge (i.e., no employee premiums or contributions); and • there is no participant cost sharing.

Limited Wraparound Coverage Self-insured and large group health plans often provide coverage not included as an essential health benefit in plans offered through the Exchanges (e.g., infertility, hospice care). Some group plan sponsors asked the Departments whether wraparound coverage could be provided to employees who obtain coverage through the Exchanges because the employer premium is unaffordable. This coverage would supplement Exchange coverage to provide overall coverage comparable to the employer’s health plan. Although the proposed regulations provide for limited wraparound coverage as an excepted benefit beginning in 2015, numerous requirements make it too burdensome for most employers to consider, particularly employers subject to the employer-mandate penalty. Employers should review these requirements with counsel before pursuing.

The Bulletin

Effective Date and Next Steps The proposed regulations would be effective for plan years starting in 2015. Until rulemaking is final, through at least 2014, the Departments will consider dental/vision plans and EAPs complying with the proposed regulations to qualify as excepted benefits. Any final regulations or other guidance issued that is more restrictive than the proposed regulations will not be effective prior to January 1, 2015. Employers contemplating “un-bundling” their dental and vision plans to preserve excepted benefit status may continue to offer such coverage with a consolidated employee contribution provided participants have the right to refuse coverage. Employers should review whether their EAPs provide significant medical care or treatment benefits to determine excepted benefits status. And, employers should continue to monitor final rulemaking or additional guidance, particularly on the definition of “significant benefits in the nature of medical care.”

February 2014

MSEC.org

Should I Have a Probationary Period for New Hires?

NLRB Finds Handbook Policy Unlawful Ryan Sarni, Labor Relations A private school in Georgia recently found itself on the wrong side of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) ruling on one of their handbook policies. Laurus Technical Institute (NLRB 2013). At issue was the school’s “No Gossip” policy. The ALJ ruled that the policy violated federal law because it was overbroad and could prohibit activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The school created the policy in response to an employee who it felt was spending too much time gossiping. The policy states in relevant part that “[g]ossip is not tolerated at Laurus,” and that “[e]mployees that participate in or instigate gossip about the company, an employee, or customer will receive disciplinary action.” The policy defined gossip as “an activity that can drain, corrupt, distract, and down-shift the company’s productivity, morale, and overall satisfaction.” In addition to the policy, the school told the employee not to discuss work issues with anyone except her supervisor and the CEO. Less than one year after this conversation and the implementation of the policy, the school terminated the employee for “unsatisfactory performance,” which included violations of the no gossip policy. In ruling on the employee’s subsequent unfair labor practice charge, the ALJ found that the policy was overbroad because it could “restrict employees from discussing or complaining about any terms and conditions of employment.” Such a restriction could “chill the exercise” of NLRA rights. The ALJ pointed out that similar policies that could potentially prohibit protected activity have been found to be legal where they included clarifying language specifically outlining the prohibited activity. These policies provided examples of permissible and impermissible activity, and included details to ensure that protected activity was not prohibited. In Laurus, however, the school had not “sufficiently narrowed, clarified, or defined the scope of its broad no gossip rule.” Laurus provides another example of the NLRB’s focus on handbook policies in non-union workplaces. Employers should review their policies to assure they do not potentially prohibit the exercise of protected activity under the NLRA. Other potential NLRB target policies include those on social media, open-door problem solving, media relations, confidentiality, and policies that prohibit disparaging the company. MSEC attorneys are available to assist our members with this analysis.

Tina Harkness, Membership Development We generally do not recommend that employers have probationary periods. A probationary period is the initial period of employment where the employer considers whether the new employee meets the standards and expectations of the job and decides whether to retain him or her as a “regular” employee. If the employee does not measure up, the employer can release the employee at any time during the period. The law does not require employers to have probationary periods. Probationary periods originated in union contracts. For example, a union agreement might include a clause saying that employees terminated or disciplined during their probationary period could not file a grievance. Such a clause saved the union and the employer the time and resources of handling the grievance. In a non-union organization, there is no need for such a period. Employers do not derive the benefit they desire—decreased legal exposure—from probationary periods. Probationary periods frequently give employers an inaccurate perception that they can discharge employees for any reason, legal or illegal, during this period without liability. Not true. Most laws protect employees from the beginning of the relationship, and even very short-term employees can sue. Therefore, employers should address (and document) performance problems of probationary employees as they would any other employee. Having a probationary period can undermine the employment-at-will relationship. Probationary periods imply greater rights for employees after that period ends. Employees who satisfactorily complete such periods tend to feel a heightened sense of job security, believing that from that point forward good or reasonable “cause” is required before they can be disciplined or terminated. Probationary periods may also expose employers to breach of implied contract claims. A 90-day probationary period implies that employees will have that amount of time to learn the job. Ending the relationship earlier, for example, after only 30 days, exposes the employer to an implied contract claim for the remaining 60 days. Conversely, “making it through” a probationary period implies that employees have gained “tenure” and some sort of contract going forward. In the public sector, probationary periods can give rise to the argument that a public employee has a property interest in his or her job. Where a property interest exists, public employers must provide due process prior to termination. A property interest can arise where there is reasonable expectation of continued employment. A probationary Continued on page 4

The Bulletin

February 2014

MSEC.org

Human Resources

Your 2014 ACA To-Do List

Tammeron Trujillo, Human Resource Services and Kristen Russell, Fall River Employee Benefits The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has kept employers and benefits professionals busy for over three years now, and 2014 will be no exception. Here are the major areas employers must track for 2014.

Design Changes. Upon 2014 plan renewal, plans must comply with these new design features:

Performance Appraisals: Crisis or Opportunity? Susan Meader, Human Resource Services Sometimes crises create opportunities. A real-life example of this occurred with the flooding in Colorado last fall. In People First E-zine September 2013, Sal Silvester of 5.12 Consulting Group wrote a blog on the leadership lessons learned from the crisis. For him, those lessons were:

• All medical copays must apply to the Out of Pocket (OOP) maximum

• People rise to unbelievable levels of magnificence when they find meaning in what they do.

• The OOP maximum must be less than $6,350 single and $12,700 family

• When people truly feel like their contributions matter, they go above and beyond.

• Small-group, non-grandfathered plans must include pediatric, dental, and vision

• The combined strengths of multiple people, perspectives, and differences make an impact that no individual person, department, or agency can make on their own.

• Health-status-based rewards must comply with the latest requirements

Notices. Employers must distribute: • The Notice of Coverage Options (a.k.a. “Exchange Notice”) to all new employees within 14 days of hire, and • Summaries of Benefits and Coverage to all eligible employees and beneficiaries 30 days before a renewal, and within seven days of a request or a special enrollment period.

Large Employers (50 or more FTEs). Organizations must determine whether they have 50 or more fulltime equivalents (FTEs) and are, therefore, subject to the employer shared responsibility in 2015. Large employers with variable-hour employees should become familiar with those rules to take advantage of their options for handling insurance for these employees.

Small Employers (Fewer than 50 FTEs). Small employers face new community rating rules with their 2014 renewals. Rating will only be allowed by age, zip code, and family size. For Colorado employers, this means no more rating by industry, and a narrower range of age rating than most insurers used previously. The elimination of gender rating and medical underwriting will also affect Arizona and Wyoming employers. Employers should learn their options and alternate strategies to lessen these impacts. Would you like to learn more? Join us for a webinar March 4, 2014, to review these requirements and strategies in detail.

Continued from page 3

period may create the expectation of continued employment after the period expires.

Employers should keep these lessons in mind for how they align with employee engagement. The results of these lessons are evident in work environments that get things done. Can performance appraisals, often viewed as “crises,” become “opportunities” to enhance employee engagement? The answer is yes. The performance appraisal is a conversation about how work got done in the prior year. It is also an excellent time to introduce or reinforce various elements of employee engagement. Reinforce employee engagement in the performance appraisal by not only summarizing the employee’s performance, but also letting employees know how and why their work is valuable. The performance appraisal conversation provides structure for an exchange of information—allowing opportunities to link an employee’s work, knowledge, and perspective to that of other individuals, to their team, and to the organization. Performance appraisals form the foundation for future goals, objectives, and plans that the employee and the organization can commit to. Fundamentally and powerfully, performance appraisals send an overall message to employees about how the organization views their presence and activity and why their supervisors and co-workers are counting on them to perform. Employers should use performance appraisals to reinforce employee engagement. Approached in this way, performance appraisals establish or re-establish the work environment for engaged and committed employees.

This is why we believe the potential liabilities of prohibiting periods outweigh any benefits.

The Bulletin

February 2014

MSEC.org

Human Resources

Pros and Cons of Performance Appraisal Methods Laura Woods, Human Resource Services Performance appraisal is the process where the organization translates its goals and values into individual performance standards with the expectation that individual contribution can drive business results toward success. For this desired effect, employees need to understand the expectations to which they will be held, and organizations need a means of communicating how employees are, or are not, meeting expectations. There is no one perfect method. The best method is the one that fits into the organization’s performance management process, and is clear, objective, and job-related. There are several methods, and pros and cons to each.

Category Rating Methods include graphic scales or checklists. A typical graphic scale is a 5-point rating scale where 1 is significantly below standard and 5 is significantly above. Often a comments section is included for the appraiser to provide more detail about the rating. The scores are tabulated to create an overall performance rating. A checklist is similar in that the appraiser is given a list of statements about performance and checks off those that apply. Often the statements are weighted numerically and can be tabulated into an overall “score.” Pros: Scales and checklists are easy to use and provide a quantitative rating for each employee. A well-written form will have clear instructions for appraisers, making it user-friendly and easy to understand. It should also have clear, job-related expectations for employees to promote understanding of areas of success and areas that need improvement. A quantitative result can be used to evaluate compensation decisions in an objective manner. Cons: Sometimes separate activities may be lumped together and rated as a unit rather than individually. Different words and statements may be interpreted differently by each appraiser, leading to confusion or inconsistent ratings.

Comparative Methods require the appraiser to compare the performance of each employee with the performance of other employees. This includes ranking and forced distribution. In ranking, the appraiser lists all employees from best to poorest performance. This can be done by job group, department, or for the entire company and should include a way for the appraiser to justify the rankings. In forced distribution, employees are rated and placed at different points on a bell curve. The curve is divided into a predetermined number of sections with the lowest percentage of employees falling into the poor section and on up to the percentage of best-performing employees in the excellent section.

The Bulletin

Pros: Ranking and forced distribution methods are simple to use and employees are easily divided into pre-determined groups from excellent to poor. These groups can be related to compensation decisions, if that is part of the process. Cons: A poorly executed ranking system relies on the appraiser’s subjective opinions and employees may feel the appraisals are unfair or biased. Also, there is limited quantitative data in that the amount of difference between the numbers is not exact. There may be little difference between the employees ranked 4 and 5, but significant difference between the employees ranked 15 and 16. Forced distribution methods may also be seen as unfair because a certain number of employees must be placed in each section regardless of actual ability. Even if all employees are performing below standard, appraisers still have to rank a certain number of employees as excellent. It may be difficult to justify an employee’s position on the curve.

Narrative Methods require the appraiser to submit a written narrative. Examples of narrative methods are management by objectives (MBO) and behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS). With MBO, managers and employees work together to create objectives they intend to reach within a specific time, based on the goals and values of the organization. Often compensation rewards are tied to meeting the objectives. BARS is similar to a category rating method, but is behaviorally based and measures “good” and “bad” behavior against a scale of performance levels. Pros: MBO’s collaborative system makes employees feel empowered and motivated to achieve the goals. BARS is most effective where many employees are performing the same tasks, and can be effective in holding all of those employees to pre-determined, success-related behaviors. A well-executed BARS program can deliver clearer standards and a more consistent and continuous method of providing feedback. Cons: MBO and BARS are both labor intensive for the organization and the appraisers. It may be difficult and time-consuming to come up with clear and objective individual success factors. With MBO, the goals may be too difficult, or too easy, to reach. Appraisers must be well trained to manage an MBO program, and employees may not understand how to prioritize each objective. With BARS, different behavioral anchors must be created for different jobs. No matter the method, appraisals should be administered consistently, and be tied directly to the organization’s goals and values.

February 2014

MSEC.org

Survey News

Notice of Surveys Being Conducted 2014 Personnel Pulse Survey – Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming The online questionnaire for the Personnel Pulse Survey has been sent to organizations via email with their survey access code. This survey will provide data for topics such as 2013 turnover, job absence rates, and cost of benefits. In addition, 2014 pay increase projections are surveyed. 2014 Health & Welfare Plans Survey – Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming This annual personnel practices survey is currently being conducted online. This year’s questionnaire features a reduction in the number of questions normally surveyed. The 2014 questionnaire will include insured benefits that consistently change from year to year such as health, dental, retirement and part-time employees. Excluded are benefits that typically do not change from year to year, like short- and long-term disability, accidental death & dismemberment, and life insurance. Organizations received an email with instructions for completing the questionnaire. Want to participate? If you would like to participate in the above surveys and have not received your online access code, please call the Surveys Department. Also, if you prefer to complete a hard copy questionnaire you can download the questionnaire from our website at www.msec.org. As always, it is the participation of our members that makes MSEC surveys the number one data source for the region. Thank you!

To request copies of the surveys, please contact the MSEC Surveys Department. Copies of these resources are available to authorized personnel of MSEC members. Call 800.884.1328, email surveys@msec.org, or go online to MSEC.org.

Surveys Now Available 2013 Non-Profit/Foundation Compensation Survey The 2013 Non-Profit/Foundation Compensation Survey is now available. Participation includes 87 organizations from Colorado and four from Arizona. This survey reports salary data for full-time and part-time employees in 93 positions. These data are displayed by annual budget size, and type of nonprofit. Data reported by Foundations are sorted by asset size. The General Information section of the survey reports the projected pay and pay structure increases for 2013 and 2014 in addition to other organization practices. 2013 Mental Health Survey The 2013 Mental Health Compensation Survey reports data from 23 health care organizations located in Colorado and Wyoming. This survey contains data for 49 benchmark jobs. Data are displayed by type of funding: Publicly funded (government-funded), Privately funded (no government funding) and Non-Profit (variety of funding sources). The average percentage increases in pay and pay structure increases projected for 2013 and 2014 are included in the report. In addition, participants also reported licensure differentials for clinical positions, incentive/ bonus programs, and psychiatrist on-call pay. 2013 Mining Industry Compensation Survey The 2013 Mining Industry Compensation Survey is now available. This report includes salary information from 15 mining operations in the surveyed geographic area of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Data are reported for 55 benchmark jobs in the mining industry. Data are detailed by type of ore mined. Average percentage increases in rate ranges and pay granted or projected for 2013 and projections for 2014 are summarized. Also reported are bonus/incentive pay practices for six categories of employees, and personnel practices including health insurance, retirement/incentive plans and retiree coverage.

2013 Financial Industry Compensation Survey This annual salary survey reports data for 108 positions in 36 financial institutions throughout Colorado and Wyoming. Data for surveyed jobs are displayed by geographic location and Bank/Credit Union. Participants with multiple locations reported institutions within the same geographic area under one questionnaire. The General Information Section includes percentage increases in pay and pay structures for 2012, 2013, and projections for 2014 for officers, non-officer management and non-exempt employees.

Special Studies Salary Survey Comparison 10 Government Organizations 21B/13

Jeans Policy in Professional Service Orgns. 46 Organizations 25B/13

General Counsel Position 5 National Municipal Leagues Associations 22B/13

Positions Paid on Straight Commission 3 Spa Organizations 29B/13 Payer Credentialing Specialist 4 Health Care Organizations 05C/13

Health Club Membership 37 Organizations 24B/13

The Bulletin

February 2014

MSEC.org

Unemployment Rate DENVER-AURORABROOMFIELD MSA

COLORADO

PHOENIX-MESAGLENDALE, AZ

ARIZONA

WYOMING

Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

10/13 EN 6.0% / 7.3%

10/13 DN 6.2% / 7.4%

10/13 EN 6.7% / 7.0%

10/13 DN 8.0% / 8.0%

10/13 DN 4.2% / 4.5%

11/13 A 7.0% / 7.8%

WEEKLY HOURS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

10/13 N 41.3 / 39.8

10/13 N 39.1 / 38.6

10/13 N 41.0 / 40.3

10/13 N 40.6 / 40.5

10/13 N 36.8 / 40.9

11/13 AP 42.0 / 41.6

HOURLY EARNINGS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

10/13 N 27.77 / 27.57

10/13 N 24.35 / 24.61

10/13 N 18.78 / 18.47

10/13 N 18.66 / 18.16

10/13 N 20.54/ 23.00

11/13 AP 19.40 / 19.17

Figures reported for Denver, Colorado and U.S. are from the Current Population Survey [Federal Method]

UNITED STATES

(CPI) Consumer Price Index DENVER, CO

PHOENIX-MESA, AZ

U.S.

1982-84 = 100

DEC. 2001 = 100

1982-84 = 100

Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jan-Jun 2013 N 219.6 / 213.6 +2.8%

Jan-Jun 2013 N 125.2 / 123.9 +1.0%

11/13 A 230.1 / 227.6 +1.1%

CPI-U* All Urban Consumers Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jan-Jun 2013 N 229.1 / 223.0 +2.8%

Jan-Jun 2013 N 125.6 / 124.1 +1.2%

11/13 A 233.9 / 231.1 +1.2%

CPI-W* Revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners & Clerical Workers

(ECI) Employment Cost Index

Private Industry Workers Manufacturing Service-providing Industries** Mountain Region*** State/Local Government Workers

WAGES & SALARIES

TOTAL COMP.

12 Months Ended

9/13 N

1.8% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 0.9%

1.9% 1.8% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7%

NOTE: Denver-Aurora MSA includes 10 counties: Denver, Arapahoe, Adams, Jefferson, Douglas, Broomfield, Elbert, Park, Clear Creek, and Gilpin. * CPI data for Wyoming is not available. ** Includes the following industries: wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; utilities; information; finance and insurance; real estate, rental and leasing; professional; scientific and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; administrative support; waste management and remediation services; education services; health care and social assistance; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services, except public administration.

DEFINITIONS/SOURCES (1) P = N = A = D = E = R = C =

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor Preliminary Data Not Seasonally Adjusted Seasonally Adjusted Reflects revised population controls and model reestimation Reflects inputs, reestimations, and new statewide controls Revised Corrected

For more information: www.bls.gov *** Includes the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The Bulletin

February 2014

MSEC.org

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID DENVER, COLORADO Permit No. 552

1799 Pennsylvania Street P.O. Box 539 Denver, Colorado 80201-0539 800.884.1328 303.839.5177

EMPLOYMENT LAW

SURVEYS

HUMAN RESOURCES

TRAINING

Save the Date for the 2014 Employment Law Update Conference Our Employment Law Update covers the most significant employment law developments of the year by stripping away the legalese and providing you with practical, timely, and critical advice to minimize employment law liability. MSEC’s expert employment and labor law attorneys craft a unique agenda that recognizes important events and developing trends in employment law. May 6 • Fort Collins May 13 • Denver May 15 • Colorado Springs May 20 • Grand Junction June 3 • Scottsdale, AZ To register call 800.884.1328 or registration@msec.org For additional information go to MSEC.org