DOL Fact Sheet: Final Overtime Rule

The Department of Labor (Department) is updating the earnings thresholds necessary to exempt executive, administrative or professional (EAP) employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

The Department is updating both the minimum weekly standard salary level and the total annual compensation requirement for “highly compensated employees” (HCEs) to reflect growth in wages and salaries. The new thresholds account for growth in employee earnings since the currently enforced thresholds were set in 2004. The Department believes that the update to the standard salary level will maintain the traditional purposes of the salary level test and will help employers more readily identify exempt employees.

The Department estimates that, as a result of the final rule, 1.3 million currently exempt employees will become nonexempt.

Links and Resources

The DOL has published the following resources to help employers prepare for and understand the final white collar overtime exemption rule. The DOL’s final rule is available here.

Highlights

Important Changes

  • The final rule increases the standard salary level for the EAP exemptions to $684 per week ($35,568 per year).
  • The final rule increases the HCE salary level to $107,432 per year.
  • The final rule permits using an employee’s  nondiscretionary bonuses toward 10 percent of his or her salary level.

Important Dates

  • Sep. 24, 2019: Final overtime rule is announced.
  • Jan. 1, 2020: Final overtime rule becomes effective.

Key Provisions of the Final Rule

The final rule updates the salary and compensation levels needed for workers to be exempt in the final rule:

  1. Raising the “standard salary level” from the currently enforced level of $455 to $684 per week (equivalent to $35,568 per year for a full-year worker);
  2. Raising the total annual compensation level for HCEs from the currently enforced level of $100,000 to $107,432 per year;
  3. Allowing employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) that are paid at least annually to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level, in recognition of evolving pay practices; and
  4. Revising the special salary levels for workers in U.S. territories and in the motion picture industry.

Additionally, the Department intends to update the standard salary and HCE total annual compensation levels more regularly in the future through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Standard Salary Level

The Department is setting the standard salary level at $684 per week ($35,568 for a full-year worker). The salary amount accounts for wage growth since the 2004 rulemaking by using the most current data available at the time the Department drafted the final rule.

The Department is updating the standard salary level set in 2004 by applying to current data the same method and long-standing calculations used to set that level in 2004—i.e., by looking at the 20th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage census region (then and now the South), and/or in the retail sector nationwide.

HCE Total Annual Compensation Requirement

The Department is setting the total annual compensation requirement for HCEs at $107,432 per year. This compensation level equals the earnings of the 80th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally. To be exempt as an HCE, an employee must also receive at least the new standard salary amount of $684 per week on a salary or fee basis (without regard to the payment of nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments).

Special Salary Levels for Employees in U.S. Territories and Special Base Rate for the Motion Picture Producing Industry

The Department is maintaining a special salary level of $380 per week for American Samoa because minimum wage rates there have remained lower than the federal minimum wage. Additionally, the Department is setting a special salary level of $455 per week for employees in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Department also is maintaining a special “base rate” threshold for employees in the motion picture producing industry. Consistent with prior rulemakings, the Department is increasing the required base rate proportionally to the increase in the standard salary level test, resulting in a new base rate of $1,043 per week (or a proportionate amount based on the number of days worked).

Treatment of Nondiscretionary Bonuses and Incentive Payments

In the final rule, in recognition of evolving pay practices, the Department also permits employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level. For employers to credit nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments toward a portion of the standard salary level test, they must make such payments on an annual or more frequent basis.

If an employee does not earn enough in nondiscretionary bonus or incentive payments in a given year (52-week period) to retain his or her exempt status, the Department permits the employer to make a “catch-up” payment within one pay period of the end of the 52-week period. This payment may be up to 10 percent of the total standard salary level for the preceding 52-week period. Any such catch-up payment will count only toward the prior year’s salary amount and not toward the salary amount in the year in which it is paid.

Updating

Experience has shown that fixed earning thresholds become substantially less effective over time. Additionally, lengthy delays between updates necessitate disruptively large increases when overdue updates finally occur. Accordingly, in the final rule the Department reaffirms its intent to update the earnings thresholds more regularly in the future through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor


Compliance Recap - September 2019

September was a busy month in the employee benefits world.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Eugene Scalia as the new Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL).

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published proposed rules regarding affordability safe harbors and Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules as applied to individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs). The IRS also announced that the health insurance providers fee will resume for 2020. The IRS released an information letter regarding transition relief and whether employer shared responsibility penalties may be waived under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The DOL, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) released final FAQs on mental health parity.

The DOL issued an opinion letter regarding delaying Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The DOL also issued an opinion letter regarding whether employer contributions to health savings accounts (HSAs) are earnings subject to wage garnishment under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA).

UBA Updates

UBA released one new advisor: FAQs, Model Disclosure, Fact Sheet on Mental Health Substance Abuse Disorder Parity

UBA updated or revised existing guidance:

IRS Publishes Proposed Rules on Affordability Safe Harbors and Nondiscrimination for ICHRAs

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published proposed rules clarifying how the employer shared responsibility provisions and Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules apply to health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) and other account-based group health plans that are integrated with individual health insurance coverage or Medicare.

Public comments on the IRS’ proposed rules are due by December 30, 2019. Because employers may want to offer individual coverage HRAs beginning on January 1, 2020, before the IRS publishes its final regulations, the IRS provides a time period within which employers may rely on the proposed regulations.

Read more about the proposed rules.

IRS Announces Health Insurance Providers Fee to Resume in 2020

As background, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a fee on each covered entity (for example, health insurers or a non-fully insured MEWA) engaged in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks. There was a moratorium on the fee for 2017 and there is a suspension on the fee for 2019. Under IRS Notice 2019-50, absent legislative action, the fee will resume for 2020. According to an estimate by the American Academy of Actuaries, the fee will increase premiums by one to three percent in 2020.

Read more about the health insurance providers fee.

IRS Releases Information Letter on Employer Shared Responsibility Penalties under the ACA

The Internal Revenue Services (IRS) released an information letter responding to an inquiry of whether employer shared responsibility penalties (ESRPs) may be waived or reduced based on hardship or other factors and whether the IRS will extend the transition relief for employers with fewer than 100 employees.

The letter notes that the law does not provide for waiver of ESRPs. While the IRS provided several forms of transition relief in 2015 and 2016, no transition relief is available for 2017 and future years. Although the January 20, 2017, executive order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the ACA Pending Repeal directs federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion to waive, defer, and grant exemptions from the ACA provisions, the ACA’s legislative provisions are still in force until Congress changes them.

DOL, HHS, and Treasury Releases Final FAQs on Mental Health / Substance Use Disorder Parity

The U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) released final FAQs About Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Parity Implementation and the 21st Century Cures Act Part 39. The Departments respond to FAQs as part of implementing the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). The FAQs contain a model disclosure form that employees can use to request information from their group health plan or individual market plan regarding treatment limitations that may affect access to mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits.

The DOL also released an enforcement fact sheet summarizing the DOL’s closed investigations and public inquiries regarding mental health and substance use disorder during the 2018 fiscal year.

Read more about the FAQs, model disclosure form, and the enforcement fact sheet.

DOL Issues Opinion Letter on Delaying FMLA Leave

The Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter in response to an inquiry of whether an employer may delay designating paid leave as Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave if the delay complies with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The employer is a government public agency subject to CBAs that allow or require employees to delay taking unpaid leave until after the CBA-protected accrued paid leave is exhausted. The CBA-protected leave is treated as continuous employment and does not affect an employee’s seniority status under state civil service rules.

The Department of Labor (DOL) concluded that, under the FMLA, once an employer has enough information to determine that an employee’s leave request qualifies as FMLA leave, the employer must designate the leave as FMLA. The employer may not delay designating paid leave as FMLA leave when leave is requested for an FMLA qualifying reason. The FMLA leave would run concurrently with the CBA-protected leave. Because an employee’s entitlement to benefits (not including health benefits) during a period of FMLA leave is determined by the employer’s policy for providing benefits during other forms of leave, the employee must accrue seniority the same as the employee would if the employee only took CBA-protected leave.

DOL Issues Opinion Letter on CCPA Wage Garnishment Regarding HSAs

The Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter responding to an inquiry of whether employer contributions to employee health savings accounts (HSAs) constitute earnings for wage garnishment purposes under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA).

The DOL concluded that employer contributions to HSAs are not earnings under the CCPA for wage garnishment purposes because the contributions do not compensate an employee directly for the amount or value of an employee’s services, are not included in an employee’s take-home pay, and can only be used to reimburse qualified medical expenses without being subject to taxes and penalties.

Question of the Month

Q: We recently received a medical loss ratio (MLR) rebate. How should the money be distributed?

A: If the plan document states how a rebate should be used, then the plan administrator should follow the plan document’s terms.

If the plan document is silent on how the rebate should be distributed, then the following general principles apply.

How should the rebate be divided?

Assuming both the employer and employees contribute to the cost of coverage, the rebate should be divided between the employer and the employees, based on the employer’s and employees’ relative share. Employers may divide the rebate in any reasonable manner – for example, the rebate could be divided evenly among the employees who receive it, or it may be divided based on the employee’s contribution for the level of coverage elected.

Employers are not required to precisely determine each employee’s share of the rebate, and so do not need to perform special calculations for employees who only participated for part of the year, moved between tiers, etc.

Using the example that the rebates are based on premiums paid to the carrier for calendar year 2018, the employer may pay the rebate only to employees who participated in the plan in 2018 and are still participating, only to current participants (even though the rebate relates to 2018), or to those who participated in 2018, regardless whether they are currently participating.

Insurers must send a notice to all employees who participated in the plan in 2018 stating that a rebate has been issued to the employer, so employers who choose to limit rebate payments to those who are currently participating should be prepared to explain why the rebate is only being paid to current participants. This might include the fact that since the rebate would be taxable income, the amount involved does not justify the administrative cost to locate former participants and issue a check.

Are former plan participants entitled to a share of the rebate?

Whether former participants should be included in any rebate allocations depends on the type of plan involved. For ERISA plans, there is no requirement that former participants be included or excluded. However, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Technical Release, in discussing fiduciary decisions regarding distribution of rebates, states that if a fiduciary determines that the cost of including former participants in a rebate distribution approximates the amount of the rebate, the fiduciary may properly decide to allocate the rebate only to current participants. This means that plan fiduciaries should consider whether to include former participants and should make a prudent decision based on all of the facts and circumstances.

For non-federal governmental plans, the interim final regulations specifically require any portion of a rebate that is based on former participants’ contributions to be aggregated and used for the benefit of current participants.

For nongovernmental, non-ERISA plans, the interim final regulations provide that if the rebate is paid to the policyholder (which is only permissible if the policyholder has given the insurer written assurance that meets the requirements of the regulations), the policyholder must allocate the rebate to current participants only, in the same way as a non-federal governmental plan. If the rebate is paid directly to participants by the insurer (because the policyholder has declined to provide a written assurance), the insurer must distribute the rebate equally among those who were participants during the MLR reporting year on which the rebate is based.

How may the employer use the rebate?

The employer may pay the rebate in cash, use it for a premium holiday, or use it for benefit enhancements. The rebate must be applied or distributed within 90 days after it is received.

A cash rebate is taxable income to the employee if it was paid with pre-tax dollars.

A premium holiday should be completed within 90 days after the rebate is received (or the rebate needs to be deposited into a trust).

Benefit enhancements include reduced copays or deductibles (which may not be practical due to the timing requirements) or wellness-type benefits that the employer would not have offered without the rebate, such as free flu shots, a health fair, a lunch and learn on nutrition or stress reduction, or a nurse line. 

How should the rebate be provided?

The employer should consider the practical aspects of providing a rebate in a particular form.

Generally, the larger the amount that would be due to an individual, the more effort the employer should make to directly benefit the person (either through a cash rebate or premium holiday). While benefit enhancements are permissible, a large rebate should be used to provide a direct benefit enhancement, such as a reduced co-pay, and not for a general benefit, such as flu shots.

The agencies have not provided any details as to what amount is so small that it does not need to be returned to the employee. (Insurers are not required to issue a rebate check to individuals if the amount is less than $5.00.) A cash rebate is taxable income if the premium was paid with pre-tax dollars, so issuing a check that is very small after taxes should not be necessary. If an employer knows it costs $2.00 to issue a check, issuing a rebate check for $1.00 should not be necessary. However, an employer cannot simply keep the rebate if it determines that cash refunds are not practical – it will need to use the employee share of the rebate to provide a benefit enhancement or premium reduction.

10/1/2019


How to Save Your Business with Cyber Liability Insurance

In recent years, the risk of cyberattacks has become a common, high-level threat to organizations. This means that both time and money need to be invested in order to take precautionary measures and implement damage control before and after an attack happens. As a result, cyber liability insurance is now the recommended measure for risk management.

According to our expert, Cathleen C. Christenson, VP of Property & Casualty at Hierl Insurance, there are two main reasons why Cyber Liability Insurance is the best way to protect your company’s cyber assets: the all-in costs of a data breach and the protection of customers and employees. Since the world will never be free of cyber risks, the right thing to do is to protect your business with Cyber Liability Insurance.

Why Cyber Liability Insurance?

When cyberattacks occur, they often result in devastating damage to an organization’s important data. This results in business disruptions related to lost revenue, restorative actions and public relations. Not being able to accurately measure business costs of cyber risk means organizations are unable to make decisions about resource allocation, technology investments and threat prioritization. According to research published by Ponemon Institute, the cost of a data breach has increased to around $150 per document lost.

While the average breach involves around 25,000 files, this could round up to nearly $3.9 million dollars. It is important to remember no organization is immune to the impact of cybercrime. Insurance will help protect your organization’s information, facilitate timely recovery of business functions, and minimize loss of revenue, customers and data.

Coverage Options

If the worst should happen and your company suffers a data breach or similar attack, you should have a business continuity plan in place. Data is generally worth more than physical assets and keeping your data safe from cyber risks requires constant attention to ensure an attack never happens. Hierl Insurance has the resources and know-how to help you identify potential risks and keep your business running smoothly in the event of an attack. Cyber liability insurance policies are tailored to meet your company’s specific needs Benefits include data breach coverage, business interruption loss reimbursement, cyber extortion defense, forensic and legal support.

Why Hierl?

At Hierl Insurance, we love what we do, and this includes a partnership with you in mind. We understand the demands of each client are unique, so we craft your options to fit your business perfectly, creating a different story for each client. We stand by waiting to greet you with a warm welcome to devise a blueprint to turn your company’s dreams into reality. Supplementing your insurance with cyber coverage can provide peace of mind that your organization’s financial and reputational well-being is protected.

To speak with Cathleen, contact her today at 920.921.5921 or by email at cchristensen@hierl.com.


Addressing Marijuana Usage and Testing in the Workplace

With the legalization of cannabis around the country, many employers find themselves asking how they should address drug testing in the workplace. Read this blog post from UBA for more on addressing cannabis usage and testing in the workplace.


Recreational cannabis legalization is rolling out across the United States, and many employers are faced with a big, hazy question: how should they address drug testing in the workplace? Eleven states have legalized recreational marijuana and 33 others have legalized medical marijuana. It’s safe to say that in the next few months or years this topic will hit nearly every employer nationally.

Your leadership team may have questions as you unpack this issue. How is cannabis influencing safety and productivity on the job? Is your company at risk for a lawsuit if medical marijuana use doesn't align with the organization's zero-tolerance drug policy? How can you develop a defensible policy that is logical and effective?

It’s understandable to feel overwhelmed by these questions, but it is important to know that you have options for ways to structure your company’s policy on cannabis usage outside of the work environment. We will weigh the pros and cons of pre-employment testing, random testing, selective testing, and not testing at all.

Pre-Employment Testing

Most corporations that rely on manual labor for profit, such as transportation or advanced manufacturing, require a drug screening prior to hire and then routinely afterward. Historically, testing positive for a drug in any category (amphetamines, opiates, narcotics, hallucinogens) has been grounds for termination or retraction of a job offer.

However, these zero-tolerance policies as a barrier to entry are becoming tricky. With the onset of cannabis legalization, many state and local jurisdictions are implementing anti-discrimination laws that protect employees who might test positive for marijuana in mandatory employer screenings. Under these laws, a person could file a hefty lawsuit resulting in expensive settlements for corporations that deny a job offer to a medicinal or recreational cannabis user. Because of this legal risk, many employers are slashing the upfront drug testing to attract and successfully onboard more people, and avoid lawsuits.

Random Testing

It is common sense that employees shouldn’t be impaired while on the job, especially in manual labor operations. However, it is nearly impossible to determine whether someone is high at work with a drug test, because cannabis can remain in the system for up to 30 days or more following even a single usage. The majority of court cases indicate that employers can’t fire someone for using marijuana when they aren’t on the clock. Because of this, more employers will need to use observation and performance review tactics to make termination decisions, and then be prepared to face any legal repercussions the employee may initiate.

For many employers, the risk of not testing is far greater than the implications of hazardous workplace accidents as a result of cannabis impairment. For example, Uber uses routine, random drug screenings to ensure the safety of its independent drivers and their passengers. It is up to each organization to weigh the risks involved in safety, legal, and productivity loss when determining if a random test initiative is the right fit.

No Testing/Selective Panel Testing

If your business or organization does not use manual labor to produce revenue, an option is to forgo testing entirely. For example, in offices and other professional environments, the risk of workplace accidents due to impairment is much lower.

Due to legalization and shifting cultural perceptions, many employer policies treat cannabis usage in an employee’s personal life as a non-issue, comparing it to alcohol. Many millennials say they prefer to smoke marijuana than to drink alcohol, and as that generation ages into corporate leadership roles, their attitudes will begin driving corporate policy.

If your team shares a relaxed perspective on cannabis, but is not quite ready to forgo drug testing entirely, a great option is a selective panel test. These do not test for THC (the active ingredient in cannabis), but can register other illegal substances. Selective panels are available to an employer in up to 14 criteria. This option can ensure workplace safety and productivity without getting into the stickiness of cannabis use.

SOURCE: Olson, B. (11 September 2019) "Addressing Marijuana Usage and Testing in the Workplace" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from http://blog.ubabenefits.com/addressing-marijuana-usage-and-testing-in-the-workplace


Key elements to consider when researching financial wellness programs

Have you implemented a financial wellness program? With financial wellness programs becoming a staple employee benefit, organizations find themselves implementing programs that only offer a few tools or resources. Read the following blog post for key elements to consider when researching financial wellness programs.


Financial wellness programs are becoming a staple in the employee benefit universe. But what should a successful financial wellness program encompass? As a rapidly growing industry, we often lack a consistent definition for financial wellness. This leads to organizations believing they have implemented a financial wellness program, when they may only be offering a few tools like education or counseling.

I define financial wellness as the process by which an individual can efficiently and accurately assess their financial posture, identify personal goals, and be motivated to gain the necessary knowledge and resources to create behavioral change. Behavioral change will result in improved emotional and mental well-being, along with short- and long-term financial stability.

As the administrator of your company’s benefits, you are responsible for bringing the best possible solution to your employees. That’s a tough ask, given the growing number of service providers. So, what is the most efficient and effective way to assess financial wellness services to determine which solution best fits your organizational needs? Ask yourself these questions:

Does the platform offer a personal assessment of each employee’s current financial situation and help them identify their financial goals? If the answer is yes: Does the assessment return quantifiable and qualifiable data unique to each individual employee?

Does the platform address 100% of your employee base, including the least sophisticated employees at various levels of employment? Much of your ROI from a financial wellness program does not come from your top performers. It comes from creating behavioral changes within your employees who need the most financial guidance.

Does the platform integrate the various components to provide a personalized roadmap for each employee? It should connect program elements like personal assessments, educational resources, tools, feedback and solutions to ensure the employee is presented with a cohesive, comprehensive plan to attack and improve their financial situation.

Does the platform offer solutions for short-term financial challenges like cash flow issues, as well as long-term financial challenges associated with saving and planning? A major return on your investment comes from reduced employee stress, which is substantially driven by short-term needs versus long-term objectives. The program must help employees deal with current financial challenges before they can focus on their longer-term vision.

About 78% of U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet, according to data from CareerBuilder.com. The need for financial wellness is clear, but there are consistent pillars that must be addressed in any successful financial wellness program to affect change: spend, save, borrow and plan. When evaluating financial wellness programs, it’s important that these dots all connect if you are truly going to motivate behavioral change and recognize the ROI of a comprehensive financial wellness program.

SOURCE: Kilby, D. (13 September 2019) "Key elements to consider when researching financial wellness programs" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/key-considerations-for-employee-financial-wellness-programs


Treasury, DOL, and HHS Issue FAQs on Enforcement of Final 2020 Benefit and Parameters Rule

The Treasury, Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released FAQs regarding the enforcement of the final 2020 benefit and parameters rule. Read the following blog post from UBA for more information.


On August 26, 2019, the Treasury, Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively, the Departments) issued FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation Part 40 (FAQs) regarding enforcement of the final rule.

Under the FAQs released after the final rule was published, the Departments will not initiate an enforcement action if an issuer or group health plan excludes the value of drug manufacturers’ coupons from the annual limitation on cost-sharing, until the final 2021 benefit payment and parameters rule is issued and effective.

SOURCE: Hsu, K. (6 September 2019) "Treasury, DOL, and HHS Issue FAQs on Enforcement of Final 2020 Benefit and Parameters Rule" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from http://blog.ubabenefits.com/treasury-dol-and-hhs-issue-faqs-on-enforcement-of-final-2020-benefit-and-parameters-rule


Illnesses, Deaths Tied to Vaping

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a health alert warning that severe pulmonary disease is associated with vaping products. Read this blog post from SHRM to learn more about vaping and how to address it in the workplace.


The use of electronic cigarettes, also known as vaping, is believed to be responsible for five deaths and 450 severe lung injuries in what appears to be a nationwide epidemic, according to new reports.

E-cigarettes are battery-operated and produce vapor that simulates smoking. They can resemble regular cigarettes, cigars, pipes, pens, USB sticks and other everyday items. They do not burn tobacco, but the device heats a liquid that usually contains nicotine, flavorings and other chemicals.

While most employers ban smoking in the workplace, their policies don't always extend to e-cigarette products. However, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) health alert on Aug. 30 warned that severe pulmonary disease is associated with using e-cigarette products. The agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, launched a multistate investigation into the lung illnesses on Aug. 1.

"Although more investigation is needed to determine the vaping agent or agents responsible," wrote Dr. David C. Christiani of the Harvard School of Medicine, "there is clearly an epidemic that begs for an urgent response." He shared his comments in the Sept. 6 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, along with the preliminary report "Pulmonary Illness Related to E-Cigarette Use in Illinois and Wisconsin."

The CDC is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, states and other public health partners and clinicians to determine what is sickening users, and in some cases resulting in fatalities. On Friday, it suggested that people refrain from using e-cigarette products during its investigation.

SHRM Online has collected the following articles about this topic from its archives and other trusted sources.  

5 Deaths Linked to Vaping. Officials Are Urging Consumers to Stop. (Chicago Tribune)

How Are You Handling Vaping at Work? (SHRM Online)

More States Ban Vaping, E-Cigarette Use in Workplaces (Bloomberg)

Florida Adds Vaping to Regulated Indoor Smoking (SHRM Online)

SOURCE: Gurchiek, K. (6 September 2019) "Illnesses, Deaths Tied to Vaping" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/Pages/Illnesses-Deaths-Tied-to-Vaping-.aspx