February 8, 2012

Hospitals and Health Care Providers: You May Be Targets of the U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs is notifying TRICARE network providers of reviews to determine their compliance with affirmative action requirements imposed on federal subcontractors.

The U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the federal agency tasked with enforcing the affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 and related federal statutes, is issuing notices across the country to conduct compliance reviews of health care providers that are part of the TRICARE provider network.  TRICARE is the government program under which active duty and retired military service members and their dependents receive health care. 

In some instances, the OFCCP compliance review notices are the first received by the hospitals; in other cases, an initial notice was issued months or even years earlier and the hospital or other TRICARE network provider protested the OFCCP's jurisdiction, without further action by the OFCCP.  The OFCCP is now aggressively reasserting its position with new and dormant cases that TRICARE network providers are federal subcontractors subject to the affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 and related statutes.

Are TRICARE network providers "federal subcontractors?" 

The Status of TRICARE network providers as federal subcontractors is still not settled.

So, why is the OFCCP redirecting its focus on the 500,000 + TRICARE network providers across the nation? 

Until now, with the exception of the test case filed by the Solicitor's Office in the Atlanta Region of the OFCCP before the Administrative Law Judge, the OFCCP has left dormant the pending investigations of TRICARE network providers protesting jurisdiction.  The OFCCP and TRICARE network providers are awaiting the decision from the Administrative Law Judge on the issue of whether a hospital, by entering into a "Hospital Agreement" with one of TRICARE's three regional contractors to provide medical services to TRICARE beneficiaries, is a federal subcontractor subject to the affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 and related affirmative action statutes. 

Of the handful of cases involving the OFCCP's jurisdiction over subcontractors, only two subcontractor cases have involved hospitals: OFCCP v. Bridgeport Hospital, ARB No. 00-034, 2003 WL 244810 (Jan. 31, 2003) and OFCCP v UPMC Braddock, UPMC McKeesport & UPMC Southside, ARB Case No. 08-048, 2009 WL 1542298 (May 29, 2009).  Significantly, the Administrative Review Board found jurisdiction in Braddock but not in Bridgeport.

What are the options? 

TRICARE network providers that receive OFCCP compliance review notices have the option to protest OFCCP jurisdiction, assuming they have no direct federal contracts.

Whether the OFCCP is first notifying the hospital or is reasserting its claim of jurisdiction, TRICARE network providers have options to consider before consenting to the jurisdiction of the OFCCP, and with that jurisdiction the potential for significant monetary penalties in the form of back wages, reinstatement and other remedies. 

Despite the OFCCP’s current practice of aggressively issuing notice of compliance reviews to TRICARE network providers, the issue of jurisdiction is not settled and hospitals may in good faith choose to protest jurisdiction.  Before agreeing to OFCCP jurisdiction, TRICARE network providers should carefully evaluate all the potential options and consequences.  To the extent a hospital has other direct federal contracts of $50,000 or more (e.g., with the Veterans Administration, Department of Federal Prisons), those hospitals have no basis to challenge OFCCP jurisdiction.

Advice?

Four words: carefully consider your options.

© 2012 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Partner

Practicing law since 1978, James (Jim) Kizziar represents and counsels the managers and owners of diverse companies and business entities in all aspects of labor and employment law, before federal and state agencies and the courts. His practice includes litigation and preventive counseling of management on issues such as discrimination, harassment, union organizing and wage-hour issues.

Mr. Kizziar conducts employment law training for executives, managers and supervisors. He also is a lecturer and prolific writer on labor law issues, and served on the editorial board of the...

210-299-3526
Partner

Leslie Selig Byrd has more than 25 years experience in the counsel and representation of management in labor and employment issues and controversies.

Ms. Byrd represents public and private employers in a variety of labor and employment matters ranging from office practice to litigation. Ms. Byrd's federal and state court litigation experience includes Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Occupational Saftey and Health Administration (OSHA), Texas Commission on...

210-299-3460

Contributors

Counsel

Judy K. Jetelina has practiced in the area of labor and employment law for more than 20 years. She represents management in the full range of labor and employment matters, including state and federal court litigation, and proceedings before federal and state administrative agencies. Ms. Jetelina primarily focuses on motion practice with particular experience in summary judgments and Rule 12 dismissals and removals.

Ms. Jetelina has knowledge of matters arising under federal and state discrimination laws and state employment tort laws, the Railway Labor Act, the National...

210.299.3520

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.