All we do is work SM An update on current labor, employment, benefits and immigration issues concerning the health care industry Labor Relations In Important Case for Health Care Employers, Federal Court in California Strikes Down Union Neutrality Law Vol. 29 No. 2 Summer 2004 Inside... LABOR RELATIONS In Important Case for Health Care Employers, Federal Court in California Strikes Down Union Neutrality Law...1 WAGE AND HOUR COMPLIANCE New White Collar Overtime Exemption Regulations Will Take Effect August 23 Despite Continued Debate, Says Labor Department...2 What Health Care Employers Need to Know and Do About the New Regulations...2 E-SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES...5 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DOL Issues Final COBRA Notice Regulations...6 STATE LAW DEVELOPMENTS Connecticut, West Virginia Enact Restrictions on Overtime for Nursing Staff...6 Massachusetts Senate Adopts Pilot Plan For Minimum Nursing Ratios at Hospitals...7 MANAGEMENT EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES How to Take Control of Workplace Injury and Disability Costs: Your TEAM Solution...7 SAVE THE DATES FOR JACKSON LEWIS Women s Employment Law Conference: Grow & Renew...8 Save the Date: October 3-5 for the Jackson Lewis Second Annual Golf Invitational...8 In a court challenge joining the United States Chamber of Commerce, the California Association of Health Facilities, the California Healthcare Association, and other employer groups, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has invalidated key provisions of a California law mandating employer neutrality in the face of union organizing. In Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer (9th Cir., April 20, 2004), the Ninth Circuit held that such neutrality legislation is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act because the law fundamentally alters the robust exchange of speech and ideas during union organizing critical to national labor relations policy. Under the neutrality law, drafted by unions and signed by former Governor Gray Davis, employers receiving state funds are prohibited from using any of those funds to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. Employers choosing to oppose an organizing drive are forced to segregate all state funds and face lawsuits filed by either the State Attorney General or unions for alleged non-compliance. Employers which either commingle state funds with private funds or expend such funds to oppose union organizing campaigns are responsible for both returning the expended state funds and paying a 200% penalty. In striking down key provisions of the law, the court rejected an argument that California could effectively force employers into neutrality through state spending restrictions. As the court explained, this neutrality legislation is on its face designed to interfere directly with the NLRA s own system for the promotion or deterrence of union organizing by employers and employees. The statute will alter the NLRA process of collective bargaining and union organizing, because an employer who decides against neutrality will incur both compliance costs and litigation risk. The court concluded that the neutrality legislation was preempted by the NLRA under the Supreme Court s decision in Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, which generally prohibits states from disrupting the free play of economic forces between employers and unions and which Congress intended to be left unregulated. Health care employers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of legislation, which has been enacted in New York and Massachusetts, and has been introduced in Arizona, Connecticut, Missouri, Maryland, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. In addition to legislation on the state level, a number of cities, for example, San Francisco, require entire industries to maintain union neutrality policies. The Ninth Circuit s decision is an enormous victory and will likely have far-reaching implications. Over the past several years, unions have shifted focus from seeking neutrality agreements with specific employers, to obtaining legislation encouraging or mandating employer neutrality at the state and local levels. This decision marks an important turning point in reestablishing open and honest communications between employers and employees regarding potential unionization. For more information, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work, or partner Bradley W. Kampas in San Francisco, (415) 394-9400; KampasB@jacksonlewis.com. 31
Wage and Hour Compliance New White Collar Overtime Exemption Regulations Will Take Effect August 23 Despite Continued Debate, Says Labor Department I t s going to be a long, hot summer, Assistant Secretary of Labor Victoria A. Lipnic said recently in referring to continuing efforts by some lawmakers to block parts of the new regulations on the exemptions from overtime pay for white collar employees. After over a year of comment, debate, and controversy, the Department of Labor issued the final regulations on April 23, 2004, with an effective date of August 23, 2004. While Ms. Lipnic predicted the blocking efforts ultimately will fail, Democrats and some Republicans continue a strategy of opposition based on the belief the new rules unfairly deprive many workers of their entitlement to overtime pay. Updating the overtime regulations is an actionforcing event creating an opportunity for compliance, Ms. Lipnic noted. She characterized the new rules as incorporating holdings from court decisions, separate interpretative sections of the old rule, and examples of jobs that are generally exempt. It is actual job duties, Ms. Lipnic emphasized, not job titles or descriptions, that determine whether an employee is exempt or not. Of particular interest for health care employers, the new final regulations for the professional exemption provide much clearer guidance than the existing regulations. The professional exemption, which continues to be divided into the learned professional and creative professional categories, includes many of the most common positions held by workers in the health care field The learned professional duties test tracks the existing learned professional criteria, focusing on employees whose primary duties involve work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction. The proposed language that would have allowed equivalent knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the armed forces, attending a technical What Health Care Employers Need to Know and Do About the New Regulations school, attending a community college or other intellectual instruction was not included in the new final regulations. Particularly helpful for health care employers are the learned professional examples and explanations illustrating the application of the exemption, including occupations that properly are classified as exempt, such as: Registered or certified medical technologists who have four years of college and course work approved by the Council of Medical Education of the American Medical Association; Registered nurses who are registered by the appropriate state examining board (same as the current regulations; licensed practical nurses generally do not qualify for the learned professional exemption); Dental hygienists who have completed four academic years of study approved by a designated credentialing body; Physician s assistants who have completed four academic years of study approved by a designated credentialing body; As noted above, the new final regulations provide that RNs are exempt, and the preamble provides that the Labor Department... did not and does not have any intention of changing the current law regarding RNs, LPNs or other similar health care employees... Thus, the alarms raised by many employee representatives that the exempt/non-exempt status for these positions will be changed by the final regulations are unfounded. For example, registered nurses currently are exempt, even though the overwhelming majority receives shift premiums or similar additional payment as a result of market factors. That classification remains unchanged by the new final regulations, as does the non-exempt status of licensed practical nurses. 2 The new final regulations were announced by the Department of Labor, as Fair Pay Overtime Security for the 21st Century Workforce. Even as the new rules continue to generate controversy and congressional blocking action, health care employers should determine the extent of the impact of the final rules on their current compensation practices. At a minimum, employers must analyze the new rules, conduct a compliance review of existing employee classification and pay practices, revise affected
policies and practices in light of the new rules, and implement the changes throughout the workforce. Summary of the FairPay Rules The FairPay rules do not alter the most basic requirements of the white collar exemptions, but, instead, realign the application of each basic requirement. The final rules redefine the salary level test, the salary basis test, and the duties tests for each exemption. Under the revised salary level test, exempt employees must receive at least $455 per week. The revised salary basis test clarifies the deductions that can be made from an employee s salary without loss of exempt status. The duties tests were revised to clarify whether duties truly are executive, administrative, or professional in nature. The new regulations clearly state that the exemptions do not apply to manual laborers or other blue collar workers. Non-management in maintenance, construction and similar occupations, such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, construction workers and laborers are non-exempt under the current regulations and will remain so under the revised regulations. The new regulations unequivocally state that the exemptions do not apply to first responders, i.e., police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and similar public safety employees, who perform work such as preventing, controlling or extinguishing fires of any type; rescuing fire, crime or accident victims; preventing or detecting crimes and similar work. These clarifying revisions regarding first responders are the result of considerable litigation over the exemption status of such employees. The Salary Level Test Under the existing regulations, an employee earning only $8,060 per year (i.e., at least $155 per week under the long test) may be classified as executive or administrative and denied overtime pay. By comparison, a minimum wage employee earns about $10, 700 per year. The final rule nearly triples the current $155 per week minimum salary level required for exempt status to $455 per week, a $300 per week increase, or $23,660 per year (the proposed final rules had called for a minimum salary level of $425 per week.) The final rule also adds a highly compensated employee test. Under this test, employees with total compensation of at least $100,000 per year will be considered exempt if, in addition, they: (a) receive at least $455.00 per week; (b) perform office or non-manual work; and (c) customarily and regularly perform any one or more of the exempt duties of an executive, administrative, or professional employee on a regular and recurring basis. The highly compensated test in the final rule includes a $35,000 increase over the $65,000 super salary test contained in the proposed revisions. The Salary Basis Test The salary basis test has been revised to provide much needed guidance regarding the type of deductions that will convert an exempt salaried worker into an overtime eligible employee. Generally, an employee s salary basis will be defeated if deductions from his or her predetermined salary are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by the operating requirements of the businesses. In other words, if an exempt employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available (if any work was performed in that work week). The final rules contain seven circumstances for permissible deductions to the salary of otherwise exempt employees: 1. Absence from work for one or more full days for personal reasons, other than sickness or disability; 2. Absence from work for one or more full days due to sickness or disability if the deductions are made under a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing wage replacement benefits for these types of absences; 3. Offset for any amounts received as payment for jury fees, witness fees, or military pay; 4. Penalties imposed in good faith for violating safety rules of major significance; 5. Unpaid disciplinary suspension of one or more full days imposed in good faith for violations of workplace conduct rules; 6.Proportionate rate of full salary for time actually worked in the first and last weeks of employment; and, 7. Unpaid leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act. The final rules also provide a safe harbor that will preserve an employee s exempt status in the event impermissible deductions are made. An exempt employee s salary basis will not be defeated if the employer: (a) has a clearly communicated policy prohibiting improper deductions, including a complaint mechanism; (b) reimburses employees for any improper deductions; and (c) makes a good faith commitment to comply in the future. This safe harbor is not available, however, if the employer willfully violates the policy by continuing to make improper deductions after receiving employee complaints. This test replaces the so-called window of correction for improper deductions, which was the subject of conflicting court rulings. Revised Duties Test: Executive Employee Exemption An exempt executive employee s primary duty must be the management of the enterprise or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision. He or she must 3
4 customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees and have the authority to hire or fire other employees (or his or her suggestions and recommendations as to hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or other change of status of other employees must be given particular weight). Regarding the requisite degree of managerial influence, the final rule provides clarification of the term particular weight. For example, if suggestions are frequently followed, this may suggest they are given particular weight. Revised Duties Test: Administrative Employee Exemption An employee will meet the revised duties test for the administrative exemption if his or her primary duty is performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer s customers; and, the primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. Fortunately, the final rule provides a more detailed description of the types of duties that will satisfy this requirement than the old regulations (e.g., Section 541.202, has authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices carries out major assignments in conducting operations performs work that affects business operations to a substantial degree has authority to commit employer in matters that have significant financial impact waives or deviates from established policies and procedure without prior approval. ). The final rules describe numerous positions that meet the basic requirements for the administrative exemption, including human resources professionals and employees performing work in tax, auditing, marketing, quality control, and other fields. Revised Duties Test: Professional Employee Exemption As noted above, an employee is an exempt learned professional if his or her primary duty involves performance of work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning, which is customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction. The rule defines work requiring advance knowledge as work which is predominantly intellectual in character, and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment. The Outside Sales and Computer Employee Exemptions The outside sales exemption has been clarified in the final rules, eliminating the confusing 20% test, which forced employers to compare the work and time of outside sales persons to that of the employer s nonexempt employees. The final rules do not add an exemption for inside sales employees. Computer employees are exempt under the final rules essentially as in the existing regulations. They now are covered in their own section in the regulations. What Employers Should Do Now According to the DOL, everyone will benefit from the new rules: employees will be better able to understand and assert their right to overtime pay; employers will be more able to determine and carry out their compliance obligations; the DOL will be better able to enforce the law vigorously. To avoid an encounter with the DOL s vigorous enforcement of the new rules for exempt employees, health care employers should act preventively to develop positive solutions for compliance. The 120- day period prior to the rules effective date provides employers the opportunity to consult with internal human resource professionals, as well as inside and outside legal counsel, and formulate a detailed plan to address the changes. As part of this action plan, health care employers should address five key components to an effective compliance program: 1. Assess the current salary levels of exempt employees to identify anyone who may lose exempt status under the $455.00 per week threshold. Management must determine whether the salary of employees identified in the assessment will be increased, or whether they will be reclassified as non-exempt. 2. Examine and assess the job duties of exempt employees who meet the $455 per week salary level test, measuring those duties by the new requirements for one or more of the white collar exemptions. Employers may find that some employees who are currently classified as non-exempt now meet the exemption requirements. Conversely, though less likely, employers may determine some employees do not meet the exemption requirements and should be reclassified as non-exempt. 3. Review pay practices for non-exempt employees to ensure they are paid for all hours worked. While the final regulations will not alter the DOL s regulations concerning inclusion of certain forms of extra compensation in the calculation of overtime for non-exempt employees, employers frequently violate the FLSA by failing to include shift differentials, on-call payments, non-discretionary bonuses, commissions and other forms of incentive earnings in non-exempt employees overtime pay. 4. Implement a policy explaining the salary program for exempt employees. The final regulations specify that improper deductions from an exempt employee s salary still can result in the loss of an otherwise valid exemption in the absence of a preventive policy. The exemption will not be lost if, among other things, the employer has a clearly communicated policy prohibiting improper deductions and incorpo-
rating a complaint mechanism. Such a policy should provide that deductions from an exempt employee s salary generally are prohibited and also should describe the exceptions to the no-docking rule. The complaint procedure should instruct employees that improper deductions are a serious violation of company policy. Employees should be directed to report any improper deduction to human resources. 5. Implement a clear policy requiring that non-exempt employees record all working time, and that all recorded working time must be paid. This is particularly important given the dramatic rise in wage related collective actions in recent years and the prevalence of employer non-compliance issues. This is an opportune time to conduct a comprehensive review of all practices relevant to the FLSA and its interpretive regulations. This review should not be limited solely to matters involving the final white collar rules; it should cover all job classifications, whether exempt or not, and all pay practices. The waiting period also provides a good opportunity to take steps to correct any irregularities or vulnerabilities revealed by the review and to explain to employees the reasons for any needed corrections. To assist employers in their compliance efforts with the new Department of Labor regulations on overtime exemptions, the Wage and Hour Practice Group of Jackson Lewis has prepared a list of questions and answers, which are available online at www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates, or by contacting a Jackson Lewis attorney. For immediate and long range assistance, Jackson Lewis attorneys are prepared and available to advise clients on all aspects of comprehensive wage and hour compliance planning, including a policy and practices audit comparing the existing and new rules with current practices. For more information, please contact the attorney with whom you regularly work, or a partner in our Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Group: Paul J. Siegel, (631) 247-4605; siegelp@jacksonlewis.com Lee A. Schreter (404) 586-1827; schretel@jacksonlewis.com James A. Prozzi (412) 232-0185; prozzij@jacksonlewis.com Robert M. Pattison (415) 536-6337; pattisor@jacksonlewis.com Jackson Lewis e-subscription Services Sign up now to receive Jackson Lewis email updates on workplace law developments. SUBSCRIBE ONLINE: go to myupdates.jacksonlewis.com and complete the electronic form for instant subscription service. or COMPLETE THIS FORM and mail or fax back to Jackson Lewis (see below): E-mail Address (for receiving updates) First Name M.I. Last Name Job Title Company Mailing Address City State/Province Zip/Postal Phone ( ) Fax ( ) Company Website Industry Type SIC Code (if known) NAICS code (if known) Are you an attorney? Yes No BY FAX: Jackson Lewis (914) 514-6072 Attention: Ms. Leslie Davis BY MAIL: Ms. Leslie Davis Jackson Lewis One North Broadway, 15th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 5
Employee Benefits DOL Issues Final COBRA Notice Regulations On May 26, 2004, the Department of Labor issued final rules governing COBRA notice requirements. Generally, the final rules set new minimum standards for the timing and content requirements for providing notice of COBRA group health plan continuation coverage rights to participants and beneficiaries. The DOL included separate model notices to facilitate meeting the COBRA notice requirements at the commencement of plan coverage, and again following the occurrence of certain qualifying events. The final rules are effective for group health plan COBRA notice obligations that arise on or after the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after November 26, 2004 (the date six months after the rules were published in the Federal Register). For example, employers with calendar year group health plans will have to comply with the new rules beginning January 1, 2005. Employers will need to check their group health plan documents or insurance contracts to identify the plan year for this purpose. All employers with group health plans subject to the COBRA group health plan continuation coverage rules will need to review and revise their existing COBRA notice forms, administrative procedures, and summary plan descriptions (SPD). SPDs must include certain COBRA administrative procedures, and COBRA notices typically included in SPDs should be updated. The Jackson Lewis Benefits Group will publish a more detailed review of the final rules and can assist clients with their implementation. To speak with a Jackson Lewis attorney about the final COBRA Notice regulations, please contact our Benefits Practice Group: Michael Jacobster (914) 514-6132, jacobstem@jacksonlewis.com; Bruce Schwartz (914) 514-6126, schwartzb@jacksonlewis.com; Robert Perry (914) 514-6118, perryr@jacksonlewis.com; Allan Friedland (860) 522-0404, ext. 215, friedlaa@jacksonlewis.com. State Law Developments Connecticut, West Virginia Enact Restrictions on Overtime for Nursing Staff Lawmakers in Connecticut and West Virginia have enacted legislation that limits the ability of hospitals to require some nursing staff to work overtime, except under emergency circumstances. In West Virginia, the law is already in effect to prohibit the state s private hospitals from forcing approximately 10,000 registered nurses and licensed practical nurses to work overtime. Nurses at four state-run hospitals and four veterans hospitals would not be affected. The Connecticut measure was approved on May 5 and would become effective on Oct. 1, 2005. Under the bill, hospitals could not require registered and licensed practical nurses or nurse s aides to work additional hours beyond what is scheduled except in certain limited circumstances including emergencies. However, the provisions do not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that addresses mandatory overtime. According to employee representatives in the state, several union contracts with Connecticut hospitals have better language than what the bill provides. According to reports, Governor John G. Rowland (R) has not indicated his position on the legislation, although a veto session is scheduled for mid-june. Under the West Virginia law, nurses who have worked more than 12 consecutive hours must be given at least eight consecutive hours off. The overtime prohibition does not apply to voluntary overtime or to nurses working under collective bargaining agreements that have established overtime policies. Mandatory overtime would be permitted in public health or institutional emergencies, such as adverse weather or a catastrophe. It also allows a hospital to require a nurse participating in a surgical procedure to remain on the job until the procedure is complete, and to insure coverage in a critical care unit until the arrival of the scheduled nurse for the next shift. According to the American Nurses Association, West Virginia joins eight other states that have prohibited or restricted mandatory overtime for nursing staff. 6
Massachusetts Senate Adopts Pilot Plan for Minimum Nursing Ratios at Hospitals T he Massachusetts Senate has approved a pilot program to require minimum nurse staffing ratios at 10 hospitals in 2005. Since the Massachusetts House did not pass a similar measure in regular session, the provision will be subject to negotiation in conference committee. The bill establishes a commission to study the pilot program, and if deemed a success, mandated staffing levels could be implemented statewide by 2007. The only state to have adopted staffing ratios is California (see Four Years After California Law s Passage, Nation s First Nurse Staffing Ratios Take Effect January 2004 in the Fall 2003 Health Care Employer). The bill calls for minimum levels of one nurse for every patient in emergency trauma or under anesthesia in operating rooms; one nurse for every two patients in critical care and burn units; one nurse per four patients in pediatrics and psychiatric wards; one per five in transitional and rehabilitative care; and one per six in well-baby nurseries. To test the ratios, the Department of Public Health would choose a geographically diverse group of 10 hospitals that already are near the mandated levels. After one year, a 17- member commission, composed of public officials and representatives from management and labor, would evaluate the results, primarily on the basis of costs. If the commission made a favorable recommendation, the pilot program would be extended to 15 more hospitals in 2006 and to all acute care hospitals in 2007. Hospitals could apply for a waiver from the requirements for one year if the cost of implementing the ratios is greater than 2 percent of net patient service revenue. Management Education Opportunities How to Take Control of Workplace Injury and Disability Costs: Your TEAM Solution P Baseline Health Information that Impacts Bottom-Line Profitability lan now to join Jackson Lewis, WorkSTEPS, OneComp and Executive Enterprises Institute for a new one-day program addressing the spiraling costs of employee injuries, absenteeism and illness. Using the TEAM approach to identify and minimize the sources of these costs, this program provides attendees the information and tools to develop and implement practical techniques for a safer, healthier and lower-risk work environment. Mark your calendar for August 12, 2004, 8:00 AM 5:00 PM, at the Palmer House Hilton, 17 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603. The program has been pre-approved for Continuing Legal Education credits in California, New York, and will meet the requirements for most other states (depending on varying state rules and regulations. To verify acceptance and hours in your state please contact the program s continuing education coordinator at (800) 831-8333, ext.210). It is approved for Recertification Credit for HR Directors for SPHR and PHR Re-Certifications through HRCI. Agenda topics include: Getting Ready to Think Outside the Bundle Counting the Costs: A Financial Distribution Study on Maximizing Your Insurance Dollar Auditing and Diagnosing Your Company s Work Injury and Disability Experience Taking Control: Let s Implement Employer-Based Return-to-Work Systems Trends and Traps of Workers Compensation that Affect Costs Overcoming Potential Labor Union Obstacles Inhibiting Success Case Study on the Laidlaw Work Injury and Disability Management Program Outcome and Cost Benefits Analysis Study on Fleetwood Enterprises Work Injury and Disability Management Program Panel discussion will feature Jackson Lewis partners Francis P. Alvarez, Michael J. Lotito, and Martin F. Payson. For more detailed information on the program and the sponsors WorkSTEPS, OneComp and Executive Enterprises, please visit www.jacksonlewis.com/events, and search by event date of August 12, 2004. You also may contact Executive Enterprises Institute, phone: (800) 831-8333; fax: (800) 250-3861; website: www.eeiconferences.com. 7
Save the Dates for Jackson Lewis Women s Employment Law Conference: Grow & Renew Make plans now to attend the Jackson Lewis 5th Annual Women s Employment Law Conference 2004. This special seminar is created exclusively for female in-house counsel and high-level human resource executives with workplace law responsibilities. The program will be held in two locations: the Norwich Inn, a spa in Norwich, Connecticut, on October 21-22, 2004, and the Claremont Resort & Spa in Berkeley, California, on November 4-5, 2004. The agenda includes workshops on a variety of workplace law issues. Registration is limited so that those who attend will have an opportunity to meet and interact with everyone present. East Coast: October 21-22, 2004 The Spa at Norwich Inn 607 West Thames Street Norwich, CT 06360 7.0 hours of CLE credit, including 2.0 hours of ethics credit. West Coast: November 4-5, 2004 Claremont Resort & Spa 41 Tunnel Road Berkeley, CA 94705 6.0 hours of CLE credit, including 1.5 hours of ethics credit. HRCI recertification credit for both conferences is pending. Save the Date: October 3-5 for the Jackson Lewis 2nd Annual Golf Invitational & Employment Law Conference Mark your calendar now for the return of this successful event combining workplace law and golf at their best. October 3-5, 2004 Mid Pines Inn & Golf Club 1010 Midland Road Southern Pines, NC 28387 For More Information and Registration, please contact: Michelle Stouber, Jackson Lewis; phone: (914) 514-6063; email: StouberM@jacksonlewis.com Website: www.jacksonlewis.com JACKSON LEWIS OFFICES Editors: Roger P. Gilson, Esq. and Margaret R. Bryant, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP Editorial Office: One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 328-0404 www.jacksonlewis.com Atlanta, GA (404) 525-8200 Boston, MA (617) 367-0025 Chicago, IL (312) 787-4949 Dallas, TX (214) 520-2400 Los Angeles, CA (213) 689-0404 Miami, FL (305) 577-7600 Minneapolis, MN (612) 341-8131 Morristown, NJ (973) 538-6890 Sacramento, CA (916) 341-0404 San Francisco, CA (415) 394-9400 Seattle, WA (206) 405-0404 Stamford, CT (203) 961-0404 The articles in this Update are designed to give general and timely information on the subjects covered. They are not intended as advice or assistance with respect to individual problems. This Update is provided with the understanding that the publisher, editor or authors are not engaged in rendering legal or other professional services. Readers should consult competent counsel or other professional services of their own choosing as to how the matters discussed relate to their own affairs or to resolve specific problems or questions. 2004 Jackson Lewis LLP Greenville, SC (864) 232-7000 Hartford, CT (860) 522-0404 Long Island, NY (631) 247-0404 New York, NY (212) 545-4000 Orlando, FL (407) 246-8440 Pittsburgh, PA (412)232-0404 Washington DC Region (703) 821-2189 White Plains, NY (914) 328-0404 8