The swiped computer contained the names, addresses and social security numbers of about 97,000 Starbucks employees.

A group of workers sued the company for negligence. One of the employees claimed a bank told him someone had tried to open a bank account using his name and SSN. The account was immediately closed. None of the other employees experienced any other signs of fraud.

Starbucks argued it couldn’t be held liable, because the employees didn’t suffer any actual consequences. The judge agreed and dismissed the case — without suffering any actual damages, the employees had no reason to sue.

The key to keeping the employees’ info from being misused and escaping liability: The company acted quickly. Shortly after the theft, Starbucks:

1. reported the crime to police
2. notified all affected employees and advised them to take steps to protect themselves, and
3. offered to pay for a year of credit monitoring services for all interested employees.

Cite: Kottner v. Starbucks

People who drive 50 or more miles a day — and or an hour-plus — to and from work have a higher risk of health problems than those with shorter commutes, a recent study found. That means higher costs for your health plan.

1. Higher rates of obesity

Left to their own devices, people with long daily commutes tend to exercise less — often they have less free time and want to spend it with loved ones, not working out.

They are also more likely to fall into bad dietary habits — think drive-through breakfasts and coffee shop fare.

2. The ravages of stress

For many of these folks, the most stressful part of their day isn’t what happens at work — it’s hurrying to beat rush-hour traffic to get to work on time and pick up their kids from after-school activities.

Also, according to the study, the average rush hour commuter’s blood pressure and heart rate are higher than that of a fighter pilot heading into combat.

3. ‘Commuter’s amnesia’

People’s brains develop a coping mechanism for handling the stress — the scientific term for it is “commuter’s amnesia.”

Ever driven somewhere and, upon arrival, had no recollection of the drive? You’ve experienced it.

And when someone’s mind regularly goes into shut-down mode like that, its can affect things like workday productivity and safety. That’s especially true for those with poor sleeping habits.

Proven solutions

Far and away, companies with widely used wellness programs are the best equipped to minimize the toll long commutes have on employees’ health.

Telecommuting programs and flex-time are other proven ways to cut the risk.

The Senate came out of conference with its version of health reform. The 2,074-page bill contains two key differences from the House version that affect employers and employees.

1. Employer contribution

• Senate: Would not require employers to offer coverage, but employers with 50 or more full-time workers would pay a penalty — $750 for each worker in the firm — if any of their workers receive federal subsidies to buy insurance through the exchange.
• House: Would require most employers to provide insurance to workers or pay a tax equal to 8%  of payroll.

2. Employee payments

• Senate: Would impose an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans provided by employers — so-called “Cadillac plans.” The Senate proposal would levy a 40% tax on the premium amounts that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. And the Medicare payroll tax rate would increase 0.5% for individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A person without insurance would be required to pay a financial penalty, starting at $95 in 2014 and rising to $750 in 2016, up to a maximum of $2,250 for a family.
• House: Would impose a 5.4% surtax on high-income people.

The two bills contain some other differences on controversial topics:

Subsidies

• Senate: Individuals and families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four — would receive a subsidy.
• House: Essentially the same as the Senate version, but the subsidies would be offered on a sliding scale.

Abortion

• Senate: Would allow people who receive insurance subsidies to choose a plan that covers elective abortions, but insurers must use premium money or co-payments contributed by consumers, and not subsidy money, to cover the cost of the abortions. Would also require that every state offer at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t.
• House: Would bar low- and middle-income people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance from choosing a plan that covers elective abortions.

Coverage for illegal immigrants

• Senate: Would bar illegal immigrants from buying insurance from a national exchange, even if they could pay the full cost and didn’t receive subsidies.
• House: Would allow illegal immigrants to buy coverage from a national insurance exchange, but they wouldn’t be eligible for federal subsidies.

Playing favorites when promoting from within.

It’s apt to happen, because the hiring manager will likely know some or all of the people seeking the position. That can lead to promotions being handed out on the basis of personal likes and dislikes.

But as HR knows, any time a decision’s based on something other than actual qualifications, the company’s asking for trouble.

Take a look at this recent case, in which a company manipulated its internal job posting system to keep one woman from getting a promotion.

The woman, working as “Acting Electrical Supervisor,” sought a promotion to a permanent supervisory position for the employer’s mostly male staff. She responded to the job listing the company posted on its intranet. However, shortly after she applied, the listing disappeared, before anyone was selected.

A month or two later, the same listing went up again. The same chain of events occurred: The employee applied, the ad was taken down, the ad went back up. All in all, the employer advertised and un-advertised the position five times, before eventually promoting a male employee.

The new supervisor ended up resigning, because he wasn’t qualified for the position. By the time the job was open again, the female employee had quit.

She sued for gender bias, claiming she was the most qualified and that the company removed the listing after she applied because it didn’t want a woman to have the job.

The court agreed. After working as acting supervisor for more than a year, she would seem like the obvious choice for promotion. And since the company had no explanation for its stop-and-go job listing process (the exact same ad went up each time) the judge believed bias was most likely to blame.

Cite: Lewis v. District of Columbia

No doubt you’ve seen those TV ads for prescription sleep meds.

You know the ones: People sleep peacefully as a glowing butterfly floats overhead. Abe Lincoln playing chess with a groundhog.

Ever since the ads launched, use of these meds has skyrocketed.

The good news: Proper use of the meds can have its advantages for employers. When workers get enough sleep they’re more productive and energetic at work.

Costly concerns

The bad news: Unnecessary prescriptions appear to be on the rise — with employers getting clobbered by heavy costs on their health plans.

The cause? Employees with sleep disorders are heading to their primary care doctor and not a sleep specialist.

For people with legitimate sleep disorders (sleep apnea, restless-leg syndrome, etc.), there may be treatments out there other than “sleeping pills” that may help — and even eliminate any future need for costly prescription meds.

Meds as the last resort

The TV drug ads may give employees the impression that medication is the only — or the best — solution to their problem.

But many people can successfully combat sleepiness without meds.

Tell them to try these fixes first:

• cutting caffeine intake in the afternoon and at night
• reducing alcohol consumption
• exercising more — but not in the four hours prior to bedtime, and
• establishing — and sticking to — set sleep and wake-up times.

Here’s the typical dangerous scenario:

Two employees have company-issued cell phones. One employee uses the company phone to send harassing text messages to the other employee’s company-issued phone. The receiving employee files a harassment complaint.

What’s the employer’s responsibility?

The various state laws indicate that electronic messages, such as e-mail, are considered evidence in harassment cases, and must be retained by the employer — to support or refute the charge. Following that ruling, most legal observers agree the term “electronic messages” also covers text messages, meaning an employer could be responsible for storing and producing such messages when they go from company phone to company phone.

That’s another headache no employer or HR department needs, so what’s the solution? Ban texting altogether? That seems extreme and impractical, althought least one employer in Florida has done that.

But the more practical option is to develop a policy about employee-to-employee texting, especially during work hours. Employees should understand, via the policy, that such texting should be done only as a business necessity, and that employees will be held responsible for offensive or harassing text messaages.

Download this complimentary white paper

Accessibility problems can stir up legal trouble, as well as limit the field of applicants available for open positions. To avoid those problems, talk with your IT department to see if your company’s recruiting site follows these guidelines laid out by the Job Accommodation Network:

1. Use text descriptions for images – Hold your mouse cursor over an image on your site, and a block of text should appear. That’s what special screen reader software used by the visually impaired will read to the viewer. Make sure the text is something descriptive and concise.
2. Caption audio and video – If your site includes audio or files, it should offer the option of a written transcript or closed captioning. Audio descriptions of video files should also be provided, if necessary.
3. Minimize reliance on color – View the site in a black and white display to make sure everything is clear to color blind viewers. Also, avoid using just color to convey information. For example, if an applicant skips a section of a form, don’t just highlight that area in red — also include text that says “required field.”
4. Allow easy keyboard navigation – Some viewers may need to navigate the site using only their keyboard. Therefore, it should be easy to scroll through links and fill out forms using the TAB key.
5. Give more options for applying – Forms may be difficult for some people to complete, so allow them to apply through e-mail, fax, mail or over the telephone. Also, include an easy-to-find EEO statement that also provides contact info to get help applying.

The latest healthcare reform bill just passed the House. But making it through the Senate will be even harder as a few rough edges still need some smoothing.

Three things both the House and Senate do agree on:

• Requiring most people to carry health insurance or pay a penalty
• Providing “affordability credits” to lower-income individuals, and
• Expanding Medicaid by reducing thresholds for eligibility.

But that’s pretty much where the similarities end. There’s still a lot to be resolved in both bills.

Three must-watch points of contention:

Public option

The House bill includes the creation of a government-run insurance plan, which is meant to spark competition with private insurers.

The Senate is working to combine two different proposals — one from the Senate Finance Committee and one from the Health Education, Labor and Pension Committee — into a single bill.

And while the exact provisions of the merged bill are being kept under wraps, it is also expected to include a public option — but it could allow individual states to opt out.

Cost

$1.1 trillion – that’s what the House version is expected to cost over 10 years. The Senate version is expected to be less expensive.

President Obama has already said he’d like reform to cost no more than $900 billion, which could improve the Senate bill’s chances.

Funding

The House wants to impose a 5.4% income surcharge on individuals with an adjusted gross income of more than $500,000 a year and on couples with more than $1 million.

The Senate Finance Committee has proposed charging an excise tax on high-end health plans – “Cadillac Plans” – and charge new annual fees to various industry sectors.

The fees would look something like this:

• $6.7 billion from insurance companies
• $4 billion from manufacturers of medical devices, and
• $2.3 billion from drug makers.

Info: Click here to view a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate proposals.

The vast majority of HR managers say missing open enrollment has a big impact on employees’ wallets, according to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey.

How big of an impact?

• 34% of HR managers say missing open enrollment costs employees at least $500 a year in out-of-pocket expenses (for things like medical care and school tuition, which could’ve been covered by their employer)
• 20% say it costs employees more than $1,000, and
• 10% say it costs workers more than $2,500.

That’s distressing news when you consider that half of hiring managers say more than 10% of their workforce misses annual open enrollment deadlines.

In addition, 25% of workers admit they don’t pay attention to benefits changes, figuring their benefits will roll over — or because they feel the whole process is too confusing.

Employees don’t realize what they’re missing

Another big reason employees don’t participate: They don’t realize everything their employer is offering.

When asked which benefits employees aren’t taking advantage of, HR managers said:

• Wellness benefits (45%)
• Flexible healthcare spending (43%)
• Tuition Reimbursement (38)
• Banking programs (25%), and
• Discounts on personal entertainment (24%) and technology (22%).