WeComply, Inc.

WeComply Announces "Cost Accounting for Federal Grants" Course

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:51:24 GMT

February 22, 2012 (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) -- WeComply, Inc., a leader in web-based ethics and compliance training for nonprofits and corporations, has released a new course entitled Cost Accounting for Federal Grants. This course explains the guidelines of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122 pertaining to the allowability, accounting and reporting of costs for federal grants and other awards.

The course provides an overview of financial-management and cost-accounting principles for nonprofits. It then explains the A-122 guidelines for allowability of chargeable costs, the "necessary and reasonable" requirement, the need for adequate documentation, and the importance of showing that chargeable costs are "allocable to the project" and "within the grant period." Finally, it provides examples of generally allowable and unallowable costs.

“A nonprofit that doesn't follow the A-122 guidelines may have payments delayed, funding withdrawn or projects terminated,” said Mike Pallatta, WeComply CEO. “So it is critical that all employees working on federal grants, or involved in the budgeting or accounting related to these grants, understand and follow these guidelines.”

For more information on WeComply’s Cost Accounting for Federal Grants course and to see a free demo, please visit http://www.wecomply.com/ethics-training/675974-cost-accounting-for-federal-grants-compliance-training-courses-classes.

About WeComply
WeComply is a leading provider of customizable online ethics and compliance training solutions, offering more than 70 courses on such topics as anti-corruption, antitrust, Code of Conduct, data privacy and security, insider trading and whistleblowing. For more information, visit www.wecomply.com.

New Rule Restricts Commercial Drivers' Mobile Phone Use

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:42:29 GMT

Organizations that employ truckers, bus drivers and other commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers should be familiar with the requirements of a final rule that prohibits them from driving while using hand-held cell phones. The rule prohibits CMV drivers from holding a mobile phone while operating a vehicle, including while a vehicle is idling in traffic or at a traffic signal. A prohibited mobile phone is one that requires the driver to use "at least one hand to hold" the phone to make a voice call. Hands-free mobile devices are not banned under the rule.

The rule, issued jointly by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, affects approximately 4 million commercial drivers. Penalties for violating the rule are severe. The maximum fine is $11,000 for a company and $2,750 for a driver per offense. Drivers who commit multiple offenses can be disqualified from holding a commercial driver's license and have their state licenses suspended if they have at least two serious traffic violations.

The rule promotes safety on the road. Research has shown that commercial drivers are three times more likely to be involved in an accident if they are reaching for an object, such as a cell phone. They are six times more likely to get in an accident while entering a number on a handheld phone. These tasks force the driver to take his or her eyes off the road in front of them, which puts the driver at risk.

Experts divide distracted driving situations into four categories: visual, manual, cognitive and auditory. Talking on a handheld mobile phone engages all four categories of driver distraction. Text messaging has been banned for commercial drivers since September 2010, and texting has been banned since February 2011 for intrastate hazardous materials drivers. Requiring drivers to complete a safe driving training course helps ensure awareness of safe-driving practices.

First, Do No Harm: Physicians Must Protect Patient Privacy When Networking Online

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:54:56 GMT

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is designed to protect patients from unwanted intrusion into the intimate details of their medical conditions. But that same protection may be hindering caregivers from using modern technology to gain the information they need to give the best care possible. While professionals in other fields may easily consult with each other over Internet social networks like Facebook, HIPAA regulations prevent doctors from using such unsecured platforms. Ironically, in the Internet age the medical profession is still heavily reliant on FAX machines.

That may change soon. Doximity is a new, LinkedIn-type, doctors-only network that has been designed to meet all HIPAA requirements for protecting patient privacy. Although there is no such thing as a HIPAA certification, developers consulted with experts to make sure that the network is HIPAA-compliant. Prior to joining Doximity, doctors must submit to a credit check and present credentials that are checked against an American Medical Association database. After they become members, they must go through a three-step login process before they can meet with their peers online to discuss a case. Some 7% of U.S. doctors,— about 40,000 — are currently members.

Privacy experts are hailing Doximity as a safe place for doctors to collaborate. They emphasize, however, that even with the benefit of this new network, the best way for doctors, and all healthcare personnel, to protect patient privacy — and to protect themselves from reprimand or lawsuits — is to be thoroughly knowledgeable about HIPAA requirements. They suggest that doctors and their staff receive HIPAA compliance training such as that offered by WeComply.

Authorities Launch FCPA Probe of Murdoch Holdings

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:53:06 GMT

An international probe of News Corporation and its leaders demonstrates the broad scope of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA investigation follows more than 100 civil claims that threaten to topple the Rupert Murdoch media empire.

Murdoch's UK newspaper company, News International, has settled more than 60 claims brought by politicians, athletes, entertainers and others who were allegedly damaged by News International's wiretaps and voicemail interceptions. The company's wrongdoing extends back at least to 2003 when journalists hacked the voicemail of a missing girl and hampered the police investigation of her disappearance. The latest investigation focuses on The Sun, a UK daily tabloid owned by News Corporation. Authorities are investigating bribes allegedly paid to police for information published in various Murdoch assets.

U.S. authorities have jurisdiction over the global company because News Corporation maintains financial offices in Manhattan. The FCPA investigation could result in millions of dollars of fines being levied against Murdoch and company executives. Company leaders could be jailed for knowing about employees' illegal activities and authorizing them or failing to take action to stop them. FCPA penalties are based on the benefit that the defendant gained from its corruption. Authorities also consider mitigating factors such as cooperation with investigators. There's reason to believe that any penalties ultimately imposed could be harsh: Last year, for example, an individual who bribed telecommunications officials in Haiti was sentenced to 15 years in prison for FCPA violations.

While the FBI and the Department of Justice head up the FCPA investigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting a parallel analysis of false financial information that News Corporation allegedly used to mask the identities of individuals whom journalists bribed for information.

6 Things You Shouldn't Do at the Office on Valentine's Day – Or Any Other Day

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:09:04 GMT

Ah, Valentine's Day. The time for love, kisses, flowers, chocolate and romance — all things that might get you in trouble at the office. There's a fine line between lighthearted fun and sexual harassment. Where do you draw the line? Where does harmless flirtation stop and sexual harassment begin? Here are examples of behaviors you should avoid in the workplace — on Valentine's Day and every other day:

Don't send funny, sexually suggestive messages to anyone in the office. While some may appreciate the joke, others may be offended. If conduct that causes offense is part of a repeated pattern, it could be sexual harassment.
Don't give flowers with a note saying "Still hoping you'll go out with me" to a co-worker who has previously turned down your request for a date. Unless your employer has a no-dating policy, it's usually okay to ask a co-worker out one time — but it's not okay to ask him/her again if (s)he has indicated that (s)he's not interested.
Don't pat a co-worker on the butt as part of a joke, even if you are sure that (s)he would find it funny. You're not a mind reader, and you don't really know how (s)he will react. As long as what you are doing is unwelcome, it could be sexual harassment.
Here's an obvious one: Don't give your assistant a card that says "Let's get it on, Valentine" and add a note saying, "...if you want to keep your job." This is called quid pro quo harassment — asking a subordinate for sexual favors in exchange for keeping his/her job or getting a promotion or other benefits. You don't even want to joke about this because of the risk that you may be misunderstood.
Don't tell your best co-worker friends your Valentine's Day plans in explicit detail when another co-worker, who is uncomfortable hearing such stories, is within hearing distance. Behavior doesn't have to be directed at a specific individual for it to be sexually harassing to that person.
For the same reason, don't put the sexually suggestive card you received from your spouse or significant other on your desk where anyone who passes by can see it.

The EEOC says, "Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace," and encourages employers to provide training on the prevention of sexual harassment to "clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated."

Disparaging Remarks about Employers on Facebook May be Legally Protected

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:39:48 GMT

Imagine a situation where an employee is transferred to another department because of lack of work. The employee, furious about the move, posts a curse-laden rant about the company on her Facebook page, and some of her coworkers gleefully respond in kind in comments to the Facebook post, bad-mouthing the employer and calling for a class-action suit. The company has a policy that explicitly prohibits employees from making disparaging comments in any media. Does the company have the legal right to fire the worker for violating its policy?

The answer, surprisingly, may be no. It hinges on a provision of the National Labor Relations Act that says, “Employees shall have the right to … engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

In a recent case involving an employee of a collection agency, the National Labor Relations Board found that the company’s policy, which prohibited making disparaging comments about the company in any media, including electronic media, was unlawful because it “would reasonably be construed to restrict” employees’ rights to engage in conduct that is protected under the NLRA. The NLRB also found that firing the employee because of her Facebook comments was unlawful because the Facebook discussion between the employee and her coworkers “clearly involved complaints about working conditions and the Employer’s treatment of its employees and clearly fell within the Board’s definition of concerted activity, which encompasses employee initiation of group action through the discussion of complaints with fellow employees.”

In addition, the NLRB found that the firing was unlawful because it was made pursuant to the employer’s “no disparaging comments” policy, which the Board deemed overly broad. The Board did note that an exception to its rule applies if the company fires an employee because the disparaging comments actually interfered with the employee’s own work, the work of other company employees, or company operations. The exception did not apply in this particular case.

The general counsel of the NLRB issued a report in January 2012 that looked at social-media cases the Board had reviewed over the past year. The report found that five out of the seven employers' social-media policies examined were overly broad.

Laws involving employees’ use of social media are constantly evolving. WeComply’s online social media training course provides current information to employees so they can make appropriate and responsible decisions about uses of social media that might affect their employers.

First Circuit Opinion Illustrates Need for Ethics and Compliance Training

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:14:54 GMT

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified that the protections afforded to "whistleblowers" by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act don't apply to whistleblowers working for contractors of public companies.

Section 806 of SOX prohibits companies that are subject to certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who is a protected whistleblower. Fact-finders agree that these prohibitions on retaliation do not prohibit private companies from retaliating against their own employees, but they must not retaliate against employees of public employers. By contrast, SOX guidance from the Labor Department explicitly prohibits contractors and subcontractors of public companies from discriminating against their own employees.

In Lawson v. FMR LLC, the plaintiffs alleged that their employer, a privately held company, was covered by SOX because the employer was a contractor providing services to a public company. A trial court judge in Massachusetts ruled that SOX protected the plaintiffs, but the First Circuit reversed the trial court's opinion.

According to the First Circuit, the statute clearly provides protection only for employees of publicly held companies, not for employees of privately held contractors and subcontractors. The court looked to legislative intent in passing SOX and cited the "Enron debacle" in its opinion. The opinion noted that congressional reports regarding the Enron scandal mentioned only employees of public companies.

The Lawson case illustrates the complexity of federal statutes and the challenges companies face complying with them. Ethics and Compliance training helps employees and managers understand how federal law applies to them. Online programs integrate compliance training into an employee's workday and make it easy for employers to track which employees have taken the required training courses.

Workplace Discrimination Complaints Soaring

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:20:15 GMT

Since the beginning of the Great Recession of 2008, American workers have filed record numbers of discrimination complaints with the federal government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the all-time peak came in 2011 with nearly 100,000 complaints filed. However, that figure was only slightly higher than the number filed in 2010.

Although the timing of the surge in discrimination complaints suggests there might be a correlation with the economic downturn, the agency says there is no hard data to support the theory. Another possible reason for the surge is that the agency has been working hard to inform workers of their rights and has made it easier for employees to get information online about how to fill out complaint forms.

According to the EEOC, the largest number of people — more than a third — reported racial discrimination. Nearly 30% of the complaints were about sex discrimination, while about one-fourth of the complaints filed listed age as a factor. Some people reported that they were victims of more than one type of discrimination.

Of all of the complaints resolved by the EEOC in 2011, however, less than one out of five was found to have merit. Most of these workers received a monetary settlement from the companies involved. Another 16% of the cases were closed because the workers did not respond to further inquiries from the agency. Two-thirds of the cases were found to have no merit.

Experts in the field suggest that many complaints are inappropriately filed because workers do not know what constitutes a legitimate discrimination complaint. Many of those that do have merit could have been avoided had both management and workers been given proper training about how to prevent discrimination and harassment on the job.

HIPAA Compliance Audits Scheduled for 2012

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:43:42 GMT

For organizations that are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 2012 is a year of compliance audits. The Department of Health and Human Services Office has announced a 2012 pilot audit program to assess compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules and Breach Notification standards of HIPAA. Under the pilot program, the Office of Civil Rights will conduct 150 audits through December 2012.

The 2012 audits will only apply to covered entities: health plans, certain health care providers and clearinghouses. However, future audits will include assessments of third-party business associates that have access to information that is protected by HIPAA.

The OCR's goal is to audit as broad a range as possible of covered entities to generate a breadth of information about how organizations manage healthcare information. From information collected during the audits, regulators will identify best practices for dealing with vulnerabilities and risk among the various organizations audited. If an audit report indicates serious compliance issues within an organization, OCR may also initiate an additional compliance review of that organization.

The auditor for the project is KPMG, which also developed the audit protocols. Each audit will include a site visit and an opportunity for the audited entity to comment on a draft report of audit findings.

Organizations that are selected for the 2012 audit will receive a written notice with a request to provide certain information within ten days. An onsite visit will occur within 30 to 90 days after the written notice. Auditors may also request information from business associates.

Entities that are not audited will gain insight into best practices in staffing, training, and third-party agreements after the audit results are analyzed and made public.

Who Owns Your Company's Social Media Accounts?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:48:39 GMT

Social media accounts have become much more than just a place for people to tell their friends what they ate for lunch. There's no doubt that social media accounts have become valuable tools for businesses to attract, retain and influence customers. But just how valuable are they? And who owns the accounts when they're used for business?

A company recently sued a former employee over ownership of a Twitter account, claiming that the account, which has 17,000 followers, is worth an astonishing $340,000 -- or $2.50 per month per follower for the eight months since the employee left the company.

The plaintiff, PhoneDog, an Oakland, California company that runs a website with news and reviews of mobile phones, claims that the list of Twitter followers is a customer list that belongs to the company. It told the New York Times, “The costs and resources invested by PhoneDog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of PhoneDog Media L.L.C."

The ex-employee started the Twitter account while working at PhoneDog, using a Twitter account name that combined his employer's name with his own. After he left his job, he continued using the account with all of its followers — with the company's consent, he says — but changed the account name to his name alone.

The question of who owns a social media account used for business purposes is uncharted legal territory, and the outcome of this case could set new precedents. Also potentially precedent-setting will be the monetary value the court assigns to Twitter followers. "It all hinges on why the account was opened,” intellectual-property lawyer Henry J. Cittone told the Times. Several other cases involving social media account-ownership issues are active in the courts.

Companies should include provisions in their social media policies addressing the ownership and control of social-media accounts. Companies should not allow employees to establish business-related accounts in their own names. And companies should offer employees training on proper use of social media. WeComply's Responsible Social Media Training Course provides important guidance to employees in using social media appropriately and responsibly.

EEOC Sues Tire Company with Lone Female Employee

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:15:15 GMT

While many of the country's leading companies make a highly visible effort to welcome and encourage diversity, some companies seem stuck in the past. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued Mavis Discount Tire, a company that sells automobile parts and services. According to the lawsuit, Mavis hired 1,300 new managers, mechanics and tire installers over a three-year period -- and not a single one of those new hires was a woman.

The EEOC alleges that out of 800 people working in those positions since 2008, only one was a woman, even though there were women applicants who were better qualified for the positions than the men who were hired. The EEOC is suing for past and future wages for all the female applicants who were discriminated against in the company's hiring decisions and is also suing for injunctive relief.

The federal government aggressively pursues companies that have violated Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws. “The EEOC is uniquely positioned to challenge systemic hiring discrimination,” the EEOC's general counsel said. “Where necessary, we are prepared to use litigation to hold employers accountable for depriving qualified applicants of job opportunities, simply because of their sex.”

One of the trial attorneys on the Mavis case said, "Evidence of sex discrimination doesn’t get much starker than having just one woman employee out of eight hundred." While this may be an unusually extreme case, subtle forms of discrimination that are more common in the workplace or during interview screening can also run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. WeComply's online workplace discrimination training course gives employees the information they need about the law, while encouraging a corporate culture that embraces diversity.

A Social Media Policy Can Reduce Enterprise Risk

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:17:28 GMT

New media comes with new risk. Eight years after the launch of Facebook, it is clear that an employer can be at risk because of its employees' activities on social networking websites. Social media can blur the line between personal and professional behavior. An organization can reduce the risk of employer liability by establishing a social media policy for its employees. Some of the issues a code of conduct might address include —

Ethics: Employees need to know that the company's guidelines for ethical conduct apply to their online as well as offline behavior. Bullying, lying and gossiping are as unacceptable on the Internet as they are around the water cooler.

Testimonials: A company can be fined for its employees' social media testimonials about its products or services, whether the employer knew about the testimonial or not. Employees need to know the rules about posting product reviews, comments and the like.

Privacy: Employees should respect their co-workers' privacy and steer clear of publishing their colleagues' personal information. Similarly, the policy should discourage or prohibit employees from posting pictures or videos of their co-workers without permission.

Access: The policy should specify whether employees are allowed to use social media during work hours using employer-owned computers and network resources. Establishing a clear policy can prevent a situation where employees expect to be paid for time spent reading company blogs and writing on co-workers' walls.

Consequences: Although it seems obvious that violating a company policy can result in discipline or termination, it's best to spell it out in your code of conduct. Social media guidelines should also put employees on notice of the company's right to monitor use of computer systems to enforce the policy.

Harsh Penalties Await MSB Operators Who Violate AML Laws

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:59:31 GMT

Money laundering has long been a concern of organizations that handle cash. Money service businesses (MSBs) are particularly at risk of running afoul of anti-money laundering (AML) laws. The U.S. Department of Treasury has issued guidelines to help MSBs comply with federal regulations, but the guidelines are complex and can be difficult to understand.

The Justice Department can reach across borders to enforce anti-money laundering laws. In 2009, a Chilean MSB owner who operated three storefront locations in Chile was sentenced to more than three years in U.S. federal prison for money laundering. The owner, Mr. Mazza, used five bank accounts in the United States; he and his agents couriered cash across the U.S. border to be processed by a foreign exchange specialist. Mr. Mazza and all of the agents who operated on his behalf declared all the funds at Customs per U.S. law. Nevertheless, Mr. Mazza was arrested for operating an unlicensed MSB because he did not hold a U.S. license in each of the states where he maintained bank accounts. His story illustrates how an MSB operator who makes a good-faith attempt to comply with the law can still end up as the subject of investigation and prosecution.

MSB operators must ask themselves if they have properly registered their entities, if they keep adequate lists of their agents, if they have complied with other record-keeping requirements and if they have thoroughly identified and reported all suspicious activity. As the arrest of Mr. Mazza illustrates, ignorance of the law will not shield an MSB from prosecution and imprisonment.

The range of civil penalties give judges broad discretion on how to punish violators. An MSB that operates in good faith can be penalized $500 or less for negligent violations. If convicted for a willful violation, an MSB can be forced to pay up to $500,000 and be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. One way an MSB can demonstrate good faith is by providing employees with anti-money laundering training on how to comply with laws and regulations.

WeComply Announces Anti-Money Laundering Course for Money Service Businesses (MSBs)

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:59:04 GMT

February 1, 2012 (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) -- WeComply, Inc., a leader in web-based ethics and compliance training for corporate employees, has released a new course entitled Anti-Money Laundering for MSBs. This course addresses the most important anti-money laundering laws and regulations affecting the day-to-day job responsibilities of Money Service Business employees.

The course explains the most common types of money-laundering schemes and how MSBs are particularly vulnerable to these schemes. It highlights the "red flags" of suspicious activity and the reporting requirements under federal law. Other topics covered are record management, the handling of customer information and the penalties for noncompliance.

“Since MSBs provide many of the services used in money-laundering schemes, such as money orders, traveler’s checks, check cashing and currency exchanges, they're extremely vulnerable to being taken advantage of,” said Mike Pallatta, WeComply CEO. “That's why federal law requires every MSB to have an effective anti-money laundering program, and WeComply’s training course can be an integral component of that program.”

For more information on WeComply’s Anti-Money Laundering for MSBs course and to see a free demo, please visit http://www.wecomply.com/ethics-training/665477-anti-money-laundering-for-money-service-businesses-compliance-training-courses-classes.

About WeComply

WeComply is a leading provider of customizable online ethics and compliance training solutions, offering more than 70 courses on such topics as anti-corruption, antitrust, Code of Conduct, data privacy and security, insider trading and whistleblowing. For more information, visit www.wecomply.com.

Risk of Using Video Interviews to Screen Job Applicants

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:52:50 GMT

New Internet technologies are changing the way companies screen job applicants. Some companies don’t even want to look at traditional résumés any more, and are instead asking applicants to send links to their online activities or – the latest thing – to submit video interviews. Several start-up companies provide sites to record and transmit the pre-screening interviews, usually short sessions where applicants answer a few questions posed by the hiring firms. It’s convenient both for hiring firms, which get more information than they can glean from paper trails alone, and for applicants, who can record the videos on their home computers.

But is requesting video interviews a wise move for hiring companies? The videos, typically “talking head” images shot from the waist up, can reveal far more information than traditional paper résumés about applicants’ race, age, gender, national origin, disabilities and other factors that federal, state and local laws prohibit employers from using in discriminatory ways. If employers consciously or even unconsciously use that information when making hiring decisions, then they become vulnerable to discrimination claims. Similar issues arise when applicants submit video résumés on their own initiative. A survey found that 58% of large-firm senior executives, aware of the risk, won’t accept or look at video résumés that they have been sent.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission issued an informal discussion letter about the legality of using video résumés and other online videos to screen job applicants. While discussion letters are not official statements of EEOC policy, they do give an idea of how the EEOC approaches these questions.

The letter says:

EEO laws do not expressly prohibit the use of specific technologies or methods for selecting employees, and therefore do not prohibit the use of video resumes. The key question under the EEO laws is how the selection tools are used.

Conscious unlawful discrimination based on information seen in applicants’ videos clearly violates the law. The EEOC letter gives this example:

If a Title VII covered entity identifies an applicant’s religion from viewing her religious garb in a video resume and rejects her application for employment on that basis, the covered entity has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII.

However, even unconscious bias can cause problems, the letter says:

The EEO laws prohibit “not only decisions driven by.….animosity, but also decisions infected by stereotyped thinking.” Because viewing a video may trigger unconscious bias, especially if opportunities for face-to face conversation are absent, covered entities should implement proactive measures, or best practices, to minimize this risk.

WeComply’s training courses in Questionable Interview Questions and Preventing Discrimination and Harassment help managers identify and deal appropriately with legally significant issues that arise during the hiring process.

EEOC Received Record Number of Retaliation Complaints in 2011

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:53:43 GMT

Retaliation complaints are on the rise. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 37,334 complaints of retaliation in fiscal year 2011. That's an increase from 36,258 complaints in FY 2010 and sets a record for the largest number of retaliation complaints in a single year. The 37,334 charges of retaliation accounted for 37.4% of all claims filed with the EEOC in the fiscal year and were the most numerous type of claim received. The EEOC awarded $147.3 million for retaliation complaints, not including awards obtained through litigation, in FY 2011.

In recent litigation, the EEOC sued Matrix LLC, a large cleaning company, for racially discriminatory practices and for retaliation. In the retaliation part of the claim, the EEOC alleged that the company told a white supervisor not to hire black workers for a particular job. The supervisor went ahead and hired black workers anyway, based on their qualifications for the job. The company then fired the supervisor in retaliation for her refusal to follow the company's racially discriminatory policies. Matrix agreed to pay $450,000 to settle the lawsuit.

Retaliation can be more subtle than it was in the Matrix case. Illegal retaliation includes firing, demoting, refusing to promote, harassing, or negatively affecting any other aspect of employment of employees who filed discrimination charges or complained in good faith about discrimination on the job. It's important that managers understand what retaliation is so that they are able to avoid it. WeComply's online Avoiding Retaliation training course gives managers the information they need to help them avoid this potential minefield.

Domestic Violence Comes to Work — and Can Cost Companies Millions

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:35:56 GMT

If you work with someone whom you suspect may be facing physical or emotional violence at home, step up and find a way to help them help themselves. It's not just a matter of compliance.

It could save your company millions. And it's the right thing to do.

The effect of domestic violence on the workplace may seem like a peripheral issue that's easy to ignore. But, says Deborah Wells, Executive Director of the Memphis Area Women's Council, "One in five workers surveyed said they experience domestic violence at home — but domestic violence doesn't stay at home. It comes to work where employees can be distracted, tardy or absent to deal with medical or legal issues, or they can be endangered by abusers who show up to stalk or threaten them."

Here's what the spillover of domestic violence into the workplace is costing businesses:

OSHA requires that employers provide a safe and healthful work environment for employees. "Personal Relationship Violence" is an OSHA Type IV workplace violence. Employers who fail to protect their employees from workplace violence may face liability. According to one source, companies pay an average of $600,000 to settle workplace-violence lawsuits out of court, and the average jury verdict in such cases is $1.2 million.
The cost of domestic violence is huge. It's estimated that domestic-violence victims lose nearly a total of 8 million days of paid work a year, which equates to over 32,000 full-time jobs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the total annual cost of lost productivity related to workplace domestic violence at $727.8 million.

Finding help for your employees who are victims of domestic violence is more than an ethical and compliance concern. Says Wells, train your employees to "recognize, respond, and refer" when they see potential DV victims in your office, and you'll be protecting your bottom line from costly losses in productivity, insurance costs, and legal liabilities.

WeComply Offers New Course on Business Etiquette

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:54:41 GMT

January 24, 2012 (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) -- WeComply, Inc., a leader in web-based ethics and compliance training for corporate employees, has released a new course entitled Business Etiquette. This course explains the fundamental principles of business etiquette and discusses how attention to these principles can facilitate working relationships, enhance business dealings, reduce stress and encourage productivity.

The course covers such topics as considerate workplace conduct, dealing with diversity, business socializing and professional appearance. Other topics included in the course are phones and conferencing, e-mail, texting and instant messaging, online networking, and special considerations for international business.

“Employees who are unaware of the basic rules of business etiquette are at risk of unintentionally offending co-workers and clients,” said Mike Pallatta, WeComply CEO. “Training employees to practice good business etiquette can make the difference between a comfortable working environment and a tense one, or even between a successful deal and no deal at all.”

For more information on WeComply’s Business Etiquette course and to see a free demo, please visit http://www.wecomply.com/ethics-training/665479-business-etiquette-compliance-training-courses-classes.

About WeComply

Steps to Creating a Healthy Work Environment

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:34:18 GMT

In today's business climate, employees are tasked with doing more with less. Many employees are working longer hours to cover heavier workloads and increased responsibility. Increased employee stress often accompanies increased pressures and demands on employees.

Stress clearly is rampant in today's workplace. For example, at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which tracks workplace stress for its own employees, 53.4% of employees reported being "somewhat" or "very much" stressed in 2009-2010. And the effects of stress — diminished productivity, more employee sick days, etc. — can negatively affect a company's bottom line.

Luckily, many companies could improve their work environment without a lot of time, effort or money. Training employees to manage workplace stress is a significant first step toward lowering stress and creating and maintaining a healthy work environment.

A second step involves discovering the level and type of stress employees are experiencing. Anonymous surveys are a great way to do this. Consulting firms can be hired to conduct surveys and collect the results. Websites such as SurveyMonkey and Zoomerang can deploy surveys, organize the data and create reports with full anonymity for respondents. Ensuring that respondents can safely give honest responses is the only real way to find out what types of stressors are most affecting them, what level they measure their stress at, and what can be done to help alleviate the stress.

Once the information is collected, you can begin to identify what types of changes are realistic for your organization. Create a plan and share it with employees. Engaging employees is an important element of healthy work environments. You can help to reduce employee stress with training on managing workplace stress and by fostering a culture in which employees feel that they are being listened to and their issues are being addressed.

2012 London Games Spark UK Bribery Concerns

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:15:32 GMT

When nearly two million tourists and sports fans overtake London this summer for the Olympic Games, many of them will wine and dine at corporate hospitality suites. Some will even receive coveted tickets to sold-out events from vendors and business partners. The companies that provide all that hospitality must learn the ins and outs of the UK Bribery Act, which criminalizes gifts that are given with the intention of improperly influencing the recipient. If the British government determines that a company's Olympics hospitality package violated the Act, UK authorities can impose virtually unlimited fines and jail individual offenders for up to ten years.

The Act, which became effective in July 2011, covers UK-based firms and companies that conduct business in the UK. It prohibits individuals from promising or giving cash or in-kind contributions, such as tickets to the men's 100m final, with the intention of receiving improper special treatment from the beneficiary of the gift. The Act also prohibits passive bribery, which authorities describe as "agreeing to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage." Moreover, a company has strict liability under the Act for prohibited gifts given or received by employees and other associated persons.

The UK Ministry of Justice has provided guidance to help companies comply with the Act. The guidance specifies that hospitality and promotional gifts that are "reasonable and proportionate" are permissible if they are given with the intention of improving a company's image, highlighting its products and services or fostering strong business relationships.

Companies based in the U.S. and elsewhere that do business in the UK can avoid liability for the illegal acts of rogue employees by demonstrating that they undertook adequate measures, such as requiring employees to take anti-corruption training, to prevent illegal conduct under the Act.

Microsoft Supports Marriage Equality As "Good for Business"

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:25:27 GMT

In a January 19, 2012, post on the official Microsoft blog, the Redmond, Wash. software giant announced that it was supporting Washington state legislation that would legalize same-sex civil marriages.

The post, written by Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel and executive vice president for legal and corporate affairs, said, "We believe that passing this bill would be good for our business and good for the state’s economy."

Microsoft sells its products to a diverse population of customers all over the world. "To be successful," Smith wrote, "it’s critical that we have a workforce that is as diverse as our customers."

In addition, the post said, legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington would help the state's companies compete for top employees against companies in states where same-sex marriage is already legal -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont,

Microsoft is one of more than 70 companies, including Nike and RealNetworks, that publicly support the marriage-equality bill. Microsoft is also one of six major companies that signed a letter to the state legislature supporting the bill. The bill, SB6239 and HB2516, will be heard in senate and house committees on January 23, 2012. The vote is expected to be very close.

As the world changes, as more companies embrace diversity, and as federal, state and local workplace-diversity laws continue to evolve, employees need to be aware of the current legal landscape. WeComply's online workplace-diversity training course provides employees with the information they need about current laws, while encouraging them to treat everyone with respect and dignity and to recognize that diversity is good for business.

Should Pregnancy Be Covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:09:39 GMT

There has been consistent buzz recently about the possibility of expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to include pregnancy.

Pregnancy currently is not recognized as a disability under the ADA. Although, it is covered for eligible employees by the Family and Medical Leave Act., which allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from employment for the birth of a child (among other instances). The FMLA also guarantees that the covered individual can return to the same or equivalent job and retain his or her health-care coverage if provided by the company.

In a recent opinion piece featured on CNN.com, associate professor of law Jeanette Cox argued that pregnancy should qualify for ADA as a valid, short-term disability. “The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 broadened the ADA to include many short-term and relatively minor physical conditions. Pregnant women who experience comparable physical limitations should also have the opportunity to receive accommodations that will enable them to continue working,” Cox said.

With the newest amendments to the ADA now in effect, as well as the evolving conversation of what should and should not be covered by the ADA, it’s more important now than ever that managers and HR employees have a working knowledge of ADA coverages, and have received proper ADA training.

We want to hear from you. How have the ADAAA expansions to the ADA affected your business? What do you think about the possibility of inclusion of pregnancy as a covered disability?

Department of Labor Cracking Down on Violators of Breastfeeding Law

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:23:15 GMT

A March 2010 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to provide "reasonable break time" to employees who are nursing mothers for one year after the birth of their child, so that the mothers can pump breast milk during working hours. Employers also have to provide a place for the nursing mothers to express their milk that is "shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public," and that place can't be a bathroom.

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) recently started cracking down on employers who don't comply with this provision. According to MSNBC, the DOL has already cited 23 companies, including Dollar General, Dillard's, Starbucks and a McDonald's franchise, for failure to provide adequate space and/or failure to provide reasonable time. Even though the DOL has not yet written the final rules regarding the law, it "intends to continue enforcing the law based on the statutory language," according to a DOL spokesperson.

Employers with fewer than 50 employees may be exempt from the law, but only if compliance with the provision would impose an "undue hardship." Smaller companies usually have more trouble than larger ones complying with the law because it's harder for small companies to find the extra space and time to accommodate nursing mothers.

The new amendment to the FLSA was included in the Affordable Care Act, which was part of President Obama's healthcare reform legislation. The law is constantly changing, and employers need to stay informed in order to avoid potential sanctions. WeComply's online FLSA training course can help employers keep its managers and HR employees up to date on this key compliance topic.

Cost-Accounting-for-Federal-Grants-Compliance-Training-Courses-Classes

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:06:51 GMT

Online Cost Accounting for Federal Grants Training Course

Nonprofit organizations that receive federal grants and other awards must comply with various regulations issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB Circular A-122 provides general guidance regarding the "allowability" of costs to be charged to federal grants. All employees working on federal grants or involved in budgeting or accounting tasks related to federal grants must understand and follow these regulations.

Online Cost Accounting for Federal Grants Training Course Summary

This course explains the Circular A-122 guidelines for the allowability, administration, accounting and reporting of costs for federal grants and other awards. It includes pop quizzes, a matching exercise and a final quiz highlighting real-world compliance issues that employees should learn to spot and respond to in a way that will protect themselves and their organizations. The topics covered in the course include —

Overview of pertinent OMB regulations
Basic financial-management principles
Essential cost-accounting principles
Requirements for allowability of costs
The "necessary and reasonable" test
Adequate documentation
The "allocable to the project" requirement
The "within the grant period" requirement
Generally allowable costs
Generally unallowable costs

Study Shows Increase in Patient Healthcare Data Breaches

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:12:44 GMT

A 2011 study about patient privacy and data security in hospitals, doctors' offices and other healthcare organizations concluded that data breaches are on the rise in the healthcare industry. These organizations are subject to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which establishes rules that control how an organization may use private patient information and under what circumstances an organization may disclose that information to third parties.

The study, conducted by the Ponemon Institute, found that the organizations surveyed had experienced an average of four data breaches during the last two years. The 2010 study found that organizations had experienced only three data breaches, on average, in the two years preceding that study. The actual number of breaches could be significantly higher: More than 60% of the individuals surveyed said they were not confident that their organization had detected all of the privacy incidents that occurred.

Several factors contributed to breaches of private patient healthcare information. Some 41% of the survey respondents cited unintentional employee actions, while 49% attributed breaches to lost or stolen laptops and other mobile devices. (More than 80% of the organizations surveyed reported that they used mobile devices to manage or transmit patient health information.) Forty-six percent of survey participants cited errors by third parties, such as vendors and contractors, as a cause of data loss.

More than 80% of those surveyed believed patients should be notified as soon as possible of any data-security incidents involving patient health information. However, the study found that organizations take, on average, seven weeks to notify patients of a breach. The average cost per organization of a breach for the two years covered by the 2011survey was $2.2 million, a 10% increase over the average cost under the 2010 survey.

HIPAA training for the healthcare workforce can help change employee behavior, making breaches less likely to occur and potentially saving your organization the time, effort and expense of resolving resolve data-security breaches.