From NLJ: Interesting Fed. Ct decision on workplace Health Programs incentives for Employees

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202796129499/Judge-Tells-EEOC-to-Revisit-Rule-for-Workplace-Wellness-Programs?kw=Judge%20Tells%20EEOC%20to%20Revisit%20Rule%20for%20Workplace%20Wellness%20Programs&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20170822&src=EMC-Email&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&slreturn=20170722171844

Judge Tells EEOC to Revisit Rule for Workplace Wellness Programs

Regulation wasn’t vacated outright for concern about “significant disruptive consequences.”

C. Ryan Barber, The National Law JournalAugust 22, 2017    | 0 Comments

AARP headquarters in Washington, D.C.
AARP headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A federal judge on Tuesday sent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission back to the drawing board on regulations for increasingly popular workplace wellness programs, ruling in part that the agency failed to justify its 30 percent cap on cost incentives for participating workers.

AARP challenged the rule in October, arguing it would allow employers to illegally access private health information and potentially use that data in a discriminatory manner. The AARP, which lobbies on behalf of nearly 38 million people age 50 and older, also alleged the 30 percent limit on health care cost incentives was too high of a penalty for nonparticipating workers.

In the rulemaking process, the EEOC determined a wellness program could be considered “voluntary” so long as the cost incentives—or, seen another way, the penalty for nonparticipating employees—did not exceed 30 percent of the value of an individual’s plan.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia in Washington acknowledged the “tension that exists between the laudable goals behind such wellness programs”—which often entail collecting sensitive medical information from employees—and other federal regulations limiting employers’ access to such data. But he found that the EEOC had failed to adequately explain its decision to interpret the term “voluntary” in those other regulations—the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act—to allow the 30 percent incentive threshold.

“Neither the final rules nor the administrative record contain any concrete data, studies or analysis that would support any particular incentive level as the threshold past which an incentive becomes involuntary in violation of the ADA and GINA,” Bates wrote. “To be clear, this would likely be a different case if the administrative record had contained support for and an explanation of the agency’s decision, given the deference courts must give in this context. But ‘deference’ does not mean that courts act as a rubber stamp for agency policies.”

The EEOC and AARP—represented by its litigation arm, the AARP Foundation Litigation—did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read moreAnthem, Cigna and Macy’s Sued Over Wellness Plan

Bates’ decision granted the AARP’s motion for summary judgment against the EEOC rule. But Bates declined to vacate the rule entirely out of concern for “significant disruptive consequences.”

If the rule were vacated, Bates said, employees who’ve already received wellness program incentives “would presumably be obligated to pay these back,” while employers who effectively imposed a penalty on nonparticipating employees “would likewise be obligated to repay to employees the cost of the penalty.”

Protected health care information that was already disclosed to companies “cannot be made confidential again,” Bates said.

“It is far from clear that it would be possible to restore the status quo ante if the rules were vacated; rather, it may well end up punishing those firms—and employees—who acted in reliance on the rules,” Bates wrote.

From GG — Correct portal to Illinois Appellate Court Filing Website

This morning, GG tells me he spent 45 min. trying to upload a document on the new Illinois Court of Appeals Website.

So he called the help desk and they told him one of the portals doesn’t work and they forgot to take it down but another one does work.

So here is the correct URL if you are filing something:

from Odessey tech support:
the e-filing website has changed
the old one is not supported anymore and has errors

use https://illinois.tylerhost.net/OfsWeb/   to access their current website

From GG: Great Case law on TILA (Truth in Lending Act) and recission of a bad mortgage or mortgage servicer

see Barnes v Chase 9th Circuit RESCINDED and Remanded NOT for Publication 13-35716
Causey v US Bank 9th Circuit RESCINDED and Remanded NOT for Publication 10-56021
Here we find some amazing rulings from the Ninth Circuit. One pre-Jesinoski, and the other post Jesinoski …
Causey v. US Bank (2011) [3 day rescission decided pre-Jesinoski]
But in a case where the creditor acquiesces in the
consumer’s notice of rescission or fails to respond within the 20-day response period, rescission is accomplished automatically. See id.
Barnes v Chase (8/10/2017)
Check this ruling out:
For reasons that are unclear from the record, the letter to the creditor was returned to Barnes undelivered. The loan was not rescinded, and Barnes brought suit for rescission and violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and its requirements regarding rescission procedures against CBUSA, CHF, and LBPS.1 The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because notice of rescission was properly given, we vacate the grant of summary judgment on Barnes’s claims for rescission and failure to effect
rescission and remand for further proceedings.2
And:
Specifically, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Official Staff
Commentary to Regulation Z provides: “Where the creditor fails to provide the consumer with a designated address for sending the notification of rescission delivery of the notification to the person or address to which the consumer has been directed to send payments constitutes delivery to the creditor or assignee.” 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I, para. 23(a)(2); Truth in Lending, 69 Fed. Reg. 16,769-03,
16,771 (Mar. 31, 2004).

And:

CBUSA “fail[ed] to provide [Barnes] with a designated address for sending the notification of rescission” because the address it did provide was not successfully receiving mail when Barnes sent his notice there. See 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I, paras. 15(a)(2), 23(a)(2). The only remaining action for Barnes to take, per Regulation Z and the CFPB Official Staff Commentary, was to notify the servicer, which he had already done.

and

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Naifeh (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 767, 769: “[A] timely notice of rescission automatically renders the security interest void under section 1635(b) where the creditor acquiesces in the rescission or ignores it.

Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp. (9th Cir. 2012) 759 F.3d 1023, 1030 [under the procedure set forth in 15 USC 1635(b), “‘all that the consumer need do is notify the creditor of his intent to rescind,’” and the “‘”agreement is then automatically rescinded”‘”]; Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services (3rd Cir. 2013) 707 F.3d 255, 258 [“rescission occurs automatically when the obligor validly exercises his right to rescind;” Williams v. Homestake Mortgage Co. (11th Cir. 1992) 968 F.2d 1137, 1140 [agreement “automatically rescinded” when consumer notifies the creditor of his intent to rescind] and of course Jesinoski.

From AJP–Important class action settlement for those annoying robo calls. Up to $900 if you were on their list!

I just checked AND MY PHONE NUMBER was on the list.

I have no doubt that I receive dozens of these stupid robo calls per week or month.

Go to https://www.rmgtcpasettlement.com/Landing.aspx and put in your cell phone, work phone (if you own a business like I do) and home phone.

See if you are eligible to get $300 per phone call or up to $900 if you received 3 or more phone calls.

I know many of you hate attorneys, but don’t let that stop you. Every once in a while the little guys with no clout win just a teeny tiny bit.

Joanne

From SSW–Where is the accountability in the DCFS system?

I find countless cases of erroneous and/or malicious removal of kids from their homes based on any number of questionable allegations; One must ask not only themselves, but certainly the COURTS claiming jurisdiction over the family or subject, on what foundation do the merits of these petitions to remove rest?
Our constitution was written to establish the guidelines that should enforce the protections of ALL citizens involved in any case brought to a court when any person’s human, fundamental & constitutional rights are threatened on either side of a case.

When highly publicized crimes are tried in our living rooms via news or television stations allow us into the courtroom, we are also exposed to the reporters own reaction, no matter how subdued, to any particular component of a case on either side. It is natural for us to assume that what WE see and hear about a case is also what the jury inside also sees and hears. From our perspectives, the facts as presented (on our side of the television screen) are so conclusive, there can be no question as to the findings of guilt, whether the guilt is on the accused or revealed to be more on the accuser.

We have seen cases that cause us to truly question the judicial machine and the competence of jurors who hand down verdicts that defy OUR logic.

High-profile cases such as OJ Simpson’s murder trial and Casey Anthony, have left us in jaw-dropping disbelief as we are riveted to the television broadcast of verdicts handed down that are in direct conflict to what OUR perception of them were: But WE are also privileged to information of a case that the inside courtroom never saw… ie: the bloody glove and shoes theory in explicit detail or the mother’s lifestyle over the 31 days between the last time she saw her child and the time she finally “mentioned” it had been a month and she did not know where her child was. There are infinite innuendos, revelations, and even personal interjections by the reporters that we were receiving in our private living rooms that the judge and jury trying and hearing the case never knew.
While we want to scream out for justice, there is an entire court process that has concluded, from its perspective, that justice has been served.
The occurrence of child removal from parents based on nothing more than the allegation that caused the petition to be filed is increasing at an alarming rate. The reference in this article, calling these accelerated dissolutions of families “ASSEMBLY LINE JUSTICE” is horrifyingly accurate.

There is something very obviously missing in these cases, but only to those who are standing on the INSIDE of the closed doors of a family court;

*EVIDENCE, MOTIVE, REASONABLE EFFORT, JURISDICTION, VALIDITY*

The officers of the courts who are solely empowered to determine the filing, trying and defending these cases, have become so overburdened by the frequency and numbers of these cases filed, while also cloaked in the secrecy of the closed doors of family court, it has become commonplace practice of the entire system inside to fall into a mindset of mass-production. Every case has a different number, the names change, but the common factor in all of them are the allegations contain within.
Our courts have unconsciously streamlined the process, to lighten their loads. In that streamlining, certain elements of the process have been eliminated, to save time and energy.
Unfortunately for the families, mainly the parents who have been FALSELY ACCUSED by a malicious reporter, an angry family member, an uninformed caller, and even a misconstrued comment from the child himself, the courts have decided to forego the FACTS of a case that may ONLY be determined through a thorough a properly conducted investigative process, then fact-checked for validation by the court, and finally, by the Due Process protections we are promised as United States citizens.

Our family courts have forgotten those components and erroneously proceed with “Best Interest” as their motivator, as they justify the systematic annihilation of the American family on the predetermined assumption of guilt based on nothing more than a written report of a caseworker who was entrusted with the duty to investigate the allegations against parents, to collect evidence through interviews of witnesses who give weight to BOTH sides, and then to compare this evidence to conclude: Is there enough evidence to indicate this parent is a danger to her child and the child is in imminent danger of harm or has this parent been falsely, even mistakenly accused and evidence gathered has shown this to be the foundation of an allegation that does NOT constitute abuse or neglect.
These caseworkers have been bestowed with a duty to ensure a child is safe and out of harm’s way. They are sent out to the population with an illusion of superpowers. They see themselves as necessary heroes.
In many ways, they should be.

But it is the “quota” that becomes the delusion. When there are no guilty parents, no children to take, there is no funding for the budget. Then there is really no need for so many caseworkers, (just to name ONE basic reason for the need to increase the numbers of removals…if you review this ONE component in a breakdown of every penny that comes out of the budget, it may seem insignificant in the vast $$$$ of expenses included in the granting of federal funds to agencies. BUT, no $$$ are granted for intact families! It only starts flowing when the valve is opened with the removal of the children. From there it becomes a flood).
The workers who have the successful Indicated Findings which end up in family court for removal are the bread winners for this broken system. It has become a survival tactic; Their OWN self-preservation has become priority over family preservation.
*****************************************
LEGISLATORS…There is an immediate and urgent need for review of the FACTS and REASONABLE EFFORTS practices of DCFS nation wide!!! The Administrative Codes are subliminally written with the protection of the AGENCY first. The child is the vehicle. Many of the codes, policies and procedures are written to allow the agencies themselves to inflict the very same treatment of a child that they used against a parent to TAKE that child. They are given protections from prosecutions for committing the same acts they have just accused and prosecuted parents for, and usually this is done without the court ever establishing any substantial or evidentiary basis at all!
The workers write the complaint. They hand it in like a homework assignment. Their supervisor signs off on these reports as being valid and accurate without even making a follow up call to anyone noted in the investigation or a background check of the reporter to determine possible malicious motivation…all of these are essential and relevant components that are SUPPOSED to be included in the investigation process, but are overlooked or ignored. These accepted and approved submissions ultimately result in $$$$ flowing into the budget, ensures job security, wage increases, and the creation of more jobs when the numbers indicate the need for MORE SERVICES (consequently, more service PROVIDERS).

Every successful removal is like another can of spinach to Popeye.
The statutes are written to cover every aspect of potential prosecution of a guilty parent…and guilty parents SHOULD be prosecuted APPROPRIATELY. What the laws and policies do NOT address is the potential prosecution of innocent parents. Laws are written in the conclusion that ANY parent indicated for abuse/neglect IS guilty, and the Due Process that is supposed to ensure that is a CORRECT assumption ceases to exist. There is no consideration to the contrary once an Indicated finding has been submitted.

When will the courts finally begin moving the over-population of legal orphans into the FEMA camps along with the rest of the refugees, undesirables and overflows from whatever else the system has caused through mismanagement and lack of accountability?

THINK ABOUT IT

Sharon Shay Watson, court corruption victim (loss of grandchild)

Mary Catherine Ford is still looking for her Daughter, Lilly Tonkinson

If anyone knows where she is, please hand her a phone and ask her to call her mother please.

As you all know, Lilly is in an abusive guardianship and was removed from her home under false premises (promised more education and a safe place to live) instead, she has been isolated from her family and has been put in a string of abusive nursing homes where she has been beaten and sexually assaulted and not provided with medical or dental care.

Her mother worries constantly about her and she is heartsick.

Please help Mary and Lily, if you can.

She was last seen at New Trails in Albany Missouri.

thanks

 

joanne

From Ken Ditkowsky–still no justice for 94 year old Mary G. Sykes, murdered in guardianship in Cook County, Illinois

kenneth ditkowsky

10:59 AM (10 hours ago)

Each case stands on its own merits and even though the facts are similar they are distinguishable and different.
In the case dishonest judges, we are dealing with serious allegations and serious breaches of fiduciary relationship.   More important, in the case of guardianship frauds and elder cleansing we are also dealing with felony offenses against the federal health care system – such as the 700% fraud surcharge/medicare fraud.   The amounts of money stolen are so enormous that in asking for any HONEST INVESTIGATION  we are striking a blow at the genesis of the WAR ON THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED and all its side issues, i.e. theft of assets from ‘wards’, recovery of funds used to pay for appointment to the bench paid to Democratic Committeeman and DNC operatives to purchase judgeship (Chicago, Miami, New York, etc), graft and illegal remuneration for extra-ordinary serves – normally called bribes *****.
The ‘COVER UP’ is so necessary that here in Illinois JEROME LARKIN and his cadre of lawyers lacking moral conscience orchestrated kangaroo proceedings to strip any lawyer who pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 UsCA 4 to even think about an investigation of the elder cleansing scams to be suspended from the practice of law.    The Illinois Supreme Court rubber stamped.
 
As I’ve indicated to everyone — The assault on America’s core values for profit by the corrupt members of the Elite Political and judicial clans is so well entrenched that it is almost invulnerable.    
 
Seizing on cases such as the MARY SYKES CASE  09 P 4585 The Court record is so obscene that the breach of the public trust is NO ONLY OBVIOUS but obscene.    A cursory review of the file connotes dishonesty in every phase of the proceedings that crosses all lines of integrity.  The total lack of jurisdiction 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 is connoted by the Sheriff who denies serving any summons on Mary.   The admission that no notice on the next of kin was even attempted (Sodini) hammers the jurisdictional avoidance home.    The total lack of the hearing required by section 3 and 10 of the act alert even a Jurist who is deaf, blind, and suffering from advanced dementia that DUE PROCESS was denied to Mary.   (it is amazing how successful Larkin was in preventing an investigation and in selling the idea that exposing judicial corruption was akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater. – It is also amazing that the ABA, ACLU, et al could care less!)
 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and its State equivalents allow the dishonest jurist a potent weapon to make his/her exposure a dangerous proposition for a pro se litigant.   As the facts do not matter in the ‘wired’ Court proceeding the judge can and will award his buddies and 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators attorney fees — remember – the facts do not matter, the judge has made up his mind!    Attorney Goodman (Arizona) found out about this when he tried to ferret out justice for his clients who were subject to elder cleansing.   Breaking him financially was not a problem  – NO ONE CARED!    the WAR ON THE ELDERLY is to lucrative for the criminals who are taking over our judicial system to overlook!    
 
A new administration was recently elected by people who want that HONEST INVESTIGATION and if the facts are as we suspect they are, HONEST PROSECUTION and the removal of the scum from public office and the judiciary.   (We can expect that the ACLU and the ABA will be ready to protect the miscreants who prey on the elderly and the disabled!)