Employers asking job seekers for W-2 or tax return

By: Kathleen Pender, San Francisco Chronicle columnist

In a weak job market, employers have been asking job applicants for a lot of new information about themselves including, in some cases, their social media passwords.  But Kevin T. of San Francisco was shocked when a prospective employer asked him to verify his salary by providing a copy of his W-2 form…

…I checked with recruiters, lawyers, regulators and privacy experts. The consensus: Asking applicants for a W-2 or tax return is not illegal, although they do contain information that could get an employer in hot water depending on how it is used…
The Work Number, a subsidiary of Equifax that provides income- and employment-verification services, sells a service called IncomeChek that lets employers quickly retrieve a job applicant's tax data including 1040, 1099 and W-2 forms. The applicant must agree to the disclosure by signing Form 4506-T.  "Tax transcripts are available via streamlined fulfillment in hours through our direct connection with the IRS," the Work Number says on its website…

Although it is not illegal under federal law to ask a job applicant for a tax return or W-2, it is "unlawful for a person to disclose, use or compel the disclosure of the Social Security number of any person," (says Joy Waltemath, a lawyer and managing editor at Wolters Kluwer Law and Business). "It is also unlawful for a person to willfully disclose Social Security numbers obtained from tax returns or return information or to offer an item of material value in exchange for a tax return or return information." …She says employers should, at a minimum, ask applicants to delete their Social Security numbers on a W-2 or tax return, she says.  These forms also include information - such as nontaxable sick pay, dependent care credits and adoption benefits - that suggest an applicant might be in a class protected by federal or state antidiscrimination laws, Waltemath says… Tax data, or lack thereof, can also reveal whether a person is unemployed. In several states (New Jersey, Oregon and the District of Columbia) it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to consider an applicant who is currently unemployed, she adds…
[MORE]

Fate of 'uninsurables' hinges on Supreme Court

Cancer patient Kathy Watson voted Republican in 2008 and believes the government has no right telling Americans to get health insurance. Nonetheless, she says she would be dead if it weren't for President Barack Obama's health care law.  Now, the Florida small businesswoman is worried the Supreme Court will strike down her lifeline. Under the law, Watson and nearly 62,000 other "uninsurable" patients are getting coverage through a little-known program for people who have been turned away by insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions.

"Without it, I would have been dead on March 2," Watson said of the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, known as PCIP. That's when she was hospitalized for a life-threatening respiratory infection...
[MORE]

Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues

The recognition of same-sex marriages generates debate on both the federal and state levels. Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in seven states. Other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant all or part of state-level rights, benefits, and/or responsibilities of marriage. Some states have statutes or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. These variations raise questions about the validity of such unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of federal benefits. (by Alison M. Smith)

The entire concept of same sex marriage at the Federal level is far more complicated than a simple 30 second sound bite. The issues are numerous and vary greatly by state.

[MORE]

Wal-Mart to pay $4.8 million in back wages

Ylan Q. Mui (Washington Post)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012

The Labor Department on Tuesday ordered Wal-Mart to pay $4.8 million in back wages and damages to thousands of employees who were denied overtime charges, the latest in a string of embarrassments for the company over its business practices.

The department said its decision affects roughly 4,500 vision-center managers and asset-protection coordinators who worked at Wal-Mart between 2004 and 2007. Wal-Mart had considered those employees exempt from federal regulations requiring overtime pay but reclassified them in 2007. The government and the retailer have been negotiating the amount owed since then.

“When the issues resolved today were initially raised, we took them seriously and fully cooperated with the Department of Labor to make sure they were corrected,” Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter said.

The company said asset-protection coordinators are entitled to receive an average of $290 under the agreement, while the average for vision center managers is $2,300. Wal-Mart was also fined $464,000 in civil penalties.

“Let this be a signal to other companies that when violations are found, the Labor Department will take appropriate action to ensure that workers receive the wages they have earned,” Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said.

The decision comes as Wal-Mart faces investigations into its Mexican operations after the New York Times reported that company executives turned a blind eye while employees allegedly bribed local officials to approve new stores.

The Justice Department has been conducting a criminal probe of the company since December to determine whether it violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Meanwhile, two Democratic lawmakers are looking into Wal-Mart’s lobbying efforts. The Post has reported that Wal-Mart executives sat on the boards of trade organizations that have sought to amend the FCPA. The company has said it did not directly lobby on the issue.

But the reports have rattled investors and reinvigorated Wal-Mart’s critics. New York City’s pension fund, which holds a significant stake in the company, plans to oppose the nomination of several directors to the company’s board. Meanwhile, union and activist groups recently protested the retailer’s efforts to expand in New York.

On Tuesday, Making Change at Walmart, backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said the Labor Department decision represented a troubling philosophy among company officials.

“The fines Walmart must pay for its overtime violations are just another side effect of the company’s growth at any cost strategy,” the group said in a statement. “Walmart’s top executives and the Walton heirs who own a majority of the company have shown they are willing to break the law and harm workers in the name of more profits.”

This was not the first time Wal-Mart has run afoul of federal overtime laws. In 2007, the Labor Department ordered it to pay nearly $34 million in back wages to 87,000 workers — some of whom were owed more than $10,000 each.