To learn more about Employment Law, click here.

The ADEA protects people 40 years of age or older from discrimination in the workplace or when applying for jobs.  The ADEA further protects workers from retaliation for openly opposing discriminatory practices based on age or from cooperating with or participating in litigation under the ADEA.  The ADEA covers employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments. To learn more about your rights under this federal statute, check out the EEOC’s ADEA page.

To learn more about franchise agreements, click here.

Although the FTC-required disclosure documents are mandatory for first-time purchasers of a franchise, there are no required government disclosure documents that must be furnished to the buyer of an existing franchise business. The seller of the franchise is not required to provide the would-be buyer with the franchiser’s disclosure document.

You will want to very carefully study the terms of the existing franchise contract between the existing franchise and the franchiser. How long is its remaining term? Is the price reasonable? Will the operator compete with you afterwards? How does it compare with new franchises the franchiser sells to others? Will you be acceptable to the franchiser? Franchisers invariably have right to approve the transfer or sale of a franchise, or even to negotiate the right to buy back the franchise, and you don’t want to be a seller’s stalking horse.

An investment in a franchise is a substantial commitment of your money, your time, and your reputation. Our advice is to retain a lawyer to assist you in the process. It usually pays for itself many times over.

Business is a maze:  Let the experienced business law attorneys at Hanlon Niemann of Freehold, New Jersey guide you through the complexities of state and federal laws and regulations.

To learn more about franchise agreements, click here:

The franchise agreement is the cornerstone document of the franchisee–franchiser relationship. It is this document that is legally binding on both parties, laying out the rights and obligations of each. A sample agreement may either be attached to the disclosure statement or presented separately. Either way, you are entitled to receive it as a prospective franchisee five business days before signature. You should have it reviewed by a lawyer familiar with franchise matters–especially since most agreements are extremely one-sided in favor of the franchiser. No one should enter into a franchise and expect to have an evenly drawn contract.

The agreement will contain provisions covering, in considerable detail, the obligations of the franchiser (the company) and franchisee (you) regarding operating the business; the training and operational support the franchiser will provide (and at what cost); your territory and any exclusivity; the initial duration of the franchise and any renewal rights; how much you must invest; how you must deal with things such as trademarks, patents and signs; what royalties and service fees you will pay; tax issues; what happens if you should want to sell or transfer the franchise; advertising policies; franchisee termination issues; settlement of disputes; by the company, operating practices, cancellation, and attorney fees.

There is no standard form of franchise agreement because the terms, conditions, and the methods of operations of various franchises vary widely depending on the type of business involved. For example, franchises for printing, employment agencies, and automotive products will differ from the franchises for fast food service, convenience stores, or clothing.

For more information about employment law, click here:

The ADA prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees. To learn more about what constitutes a disability and what accommodations employers are required to provide to workers with disabilities, check out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ADA page here.  To get an idea of the full scope of ADA protections beyond the employment context, visit the ADA information page here.

Besides cancellation-of-debt relief, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 has other provisions that might prove helpful to you.

More time for surviving spouses
You can exclude $250,000 worth of gains from the sale of your home.  Married couples filing jointly get an even better break:  They can exclude up to $500,000 of gains as long as both spouses occupied the house as a principal residence for at least two years (730 days) of the five years preceding the sale.

That sounds fine, but what if a hypothetical Beth Williams died in late 2007, and her widower Bob decides he wants to sell the big house in which they lived.  Under federal law, as an unmarried surviving spouse, Bob would be able to claim the larger exclusion available to married couples only if he sold the house within the calendar year of the deceased spouse’s death.  As a result, many surviving spouses had to settle for a $250,000 exclusion rather than a $500,000 exclusion.  That’s not the case under the new law.  Effective for sales after 2007, an unmarried surviving spouse can exclude up to $500,000 worth of gains on a home sale, providing the sale occurs within two full years of the spouse’s death.

The general goal of Medicaid under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) is to restrict the access of middle-class taxpayers to state medical assistance benefits. One aspect of the law, however, is being touted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and state medical assistance officials as a measure that will expand the pool of moderate-income individuals who will be eligible for Medicaid. The Long-term Care Insurance Partnership (LTCIP) provisions of the DRA, to the extent implemented in individual states, will allow individuals who have purchased qualified long-term care insurance policies and thereafter exhaust their benefits paying for long-term care to shelter assets of significant value and still become eligible for Medicaid. Section 6021 of the DRA, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(b)(1) and (5), provides that states may amend their Medicaid plans to allow an individual who purchases quali¬fying long-term care insurance policies to keep more assets than the federal standard of $2000. A Medicaid applicant may exempt assets up to the value of the long-term care benefit his or her policy encompasses in determining the total value of his or her countable assets for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility. For example, a person who buys a qualified Partnership policy that assures a $200,000 long-term care benefit may exclude $200,000 in assets in addition to those assets already treated as exempt or within allowable limits for purposes of calculating the applicant’s total assets and spend-down. The assets are also off-limits from estate recovery. In essence, states implementing this aspect of the DRA “reward” those who buy long-term care policies with special privileges with respect to retention of personal assets in the event they apply for Medicaid at some point in the future.  Many details of the Partnerships have yet to be worked out—among them, portability of policies (that is, whether a Partnership policy purchased in one state will entitle the beneficiary to the asset exemption in a different state) and what measure of inflation protection individual states will mandate. Advocates of the long-term partnership provisions of the DRA provision claim that the long-term care partnership program will save billions in Medicaid costs over the next 10 years.

As of late May 2007, at least 20 states had LTCIPs or had taken the first steps towards amending their state plans to allow for them. These include four states California, Connecticut, Indiana, and New York that were involved in a federally-authorized, privately funded pilot program that began in the early 1990’s, and others that have obtained CMS approval of state plan amendments and intend to roll out their programs by the end of 2007.  State officials are teaming up with CMS for heavy pro¬motion of their LTCIPs with a fanfare that more closely resembles Microsoft’s launch of its new Vista operating system than the implementation of a state Medicaid rule.  New Jersey recently began discussing the concept which is a very positive development.

But what is the true truth about the Long-term Care Partnership programs now being implemented across the country? The bottom line: read the fine print. In the final analysis, it is unlikely that the persons who are most likely to need long-term care in the future will be able to purchase policies, due to existing disabilities or diseases that are almost universally considered disqualifying conditions within this sector of the private insurance market. Additionally, most persons who are healthy enough to qualify for these policies and can actually afford to purchase them are sufficiently well-off that they will not be eligible for Medicaid anyway due to its income limitations.

This article discusses how LTCIPs will be implemented in individual states and what these Partnerships do and do not offer clients who an¬ticipate a future need for long-term care. It outlines some basics about long-term care insurance, dis¬cusses the origins of the DRA’s Partnership autho¬rization in a demonstration program funded by a private foundation, and analyzes the likely potential that older persons who are likely to need long-term care in the future will be able to buy policies. It also offers practice tips for attorneys who shortly will need to know more about long-term care insurance than they have in the past due to the newly impor¬tant relationship between the LTCIP program and traditional Medicaid planning.

Basics of long-term care insurance. Long-term care insurance is a relatively new insurance product.  Nearly 200 companies are licensed in at least one state to sell policies, but the market is highly con¬centrated only six companies control more than 70% of the market based on premiums paid.  The general consensus within the industry is that in the early days of its marketing, LTCJ was significantly underpriced and not sufficiently “exclusive.” Not surprisingly, then, rates have gone up precipitously in recent years, and insurers and underwriters vigor¬ously pre-screen potential applicants. Recent reports suggest that some companies are denying as many as one in four LTCI claims made against older policies.  In May of this year, the industry became the subject of a congressional investigation due to news stories in the popular press reporting that some insurers were routinely denying legitimate claims.

Long-term care insurance policies can vary widely in terms of the benefits offered and other factors: differences among policies include the aggregate amount of the benefit and whether it is paid as a daily, monthly, or accumulated benefit, the event(s) triggering entitlement to the policy benefit, the elimination period, whether home or assisted living care is covered by the policy, whether and how much inflation protection is offered, and so forth.  Premiums vary significantly among policies, and it can be difficult to be an informed consumer when considering what policy to buy.  Companies do not make rate information available online or otherwise in a form that facilitates comparison shopping by potential individual applicants (employers shop¬ping for group policies may have access to better information). Employer-sponsored group policies, which are an option for fewer than 4% of American workers, are less expensive than policies available to individuals. Thus, a healthy 55-year-old state employee who has access to group long-term care insurance plan might expect to pay about $2,400 annually for a policy offering a $200 per day, in¬flation-protected benefit for three years, while a similarly situated person buying an individual policy might have a premium that is 50 to 100% or more higher than this. In short, it is impossible to articulate an “average” monthly cost for long-term care insurance.

Policies that contain inflation protection are al¬most twice as expensive as those without it. A carrier can usually increase rates on existing policies for all members of a “class” of insureds when such an increase is reasonable, as determined by the state regulatory agency.” Loss ratios (the percentage of total premiums collected that are paid out to poli¬cyholders who collect on their policies) appear to be substantially lower than in other sectors of the insurance market. Historically, agents have received higher commission percentages on LTCI sales than on other types of policies, although this may be changing. Three-quarters of all LTCI benefits are paid to persons between the ages of 81 and 95.

Members of the Senate indicated that they want to reduce estate taxes without eliminating estate taxes.  Senators delivered that message through votes on a series of amendments to a non-binding budget resolution.

Senators voted 99-1 for a proposal introduced by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to set the estate tax at the 2009 level—with a $3.5 million individual exemption and a 45% maximum tax rate for estates that must pay the tax—and index the exemption for inflation.

A second proposal, to create a reserve fund that would permit the government to increase the individual estate tax exemption to $5 million and cut the maximum tax rate to 35%, lost on a 38-62 vote.  Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., introduced that proposal.

Several senators, including Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., say they prefer the Salazar proposal. Those senators contend that freezing the estate tax exemption and maximum tax rate at the 2009 level would not do enough to protect small businesses and family farms.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., introduced a proposal that would have set the estate tax exemption at $5 million with a maximum tax rate of 35%.  The Kyl proposal lost on a 50-50 vote.  Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the Republicans.  Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, voted with the Democrats.

The vice president can break ties in the Senate, but he was not present at the time of the vote.

Another proposal, introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that also would have set the exemption at $5 million and the maximum tax rate at 35% failed 47-52.

Lawmakers considered the proposals on the Senate floor, while working on the fiscal year 2009 federal budget resolution.  The budget resolution has no direct effect on the federal budget, but it will help shape how easily certain types of bills can get to the floor of the Senate.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 calls for the federal government to phase out the estate tax and eliminate it completely in 2010. If, however, Congress fails to act, the estate tax will spring back to 2001 levels – with an individual exemption of $1 million and a 55% maximum tax rate – in 2011.

Under current law, the 2009 individual exemption is set to be $3.5 million, and the maximum tax rate would be 45%.  Historically, opponents of the estate tax, who call it the “death tax,” have favored eliminating the estate tax.

Many life insurers profit from selling products aimed at helping customers reduce or pay their estate taxes, and life groups have supported the idea of reducing the number of taxpayers affected by the estate tax rather than the idea of eliminating the tax.

Larry Raymond, president of the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting, Falls Church, Va., welcomed the Senate votes.  “It is clear from events this week that, even with a large number of competing priorities, the Senate continues to focus time on estate tax reform,” Raymond says. “We know a number of key Senators are very interested in seeing this issue resolved” before 2010.

The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on estate taxes in mid-April, but the AALU does not expect to see action on the issue until 2009, at the earliest.

Millions spend golden years making green

Cecil Lawrence’s friends tease him that he’s crazy to work at his age. The 90-year-old glass salesman just laughs and suggests that they’re even crazier to sit at home and watch soap operas. “I guess they’re content to be old folks,” he said.

Like Mr. Lawrence, about 2.7 million Americans are skipping retirement and working into their 70s, 80s and even 90s.  Most remain on the job, retirement experts say, not for the money but for the personal satisfaction.  The lifelong workers still account for only 10 percent of their generation, but the proportion of over-70 Americans who have “retired retirement” has edged up since the 1990s as people live longer, enjoy better health and hold less physically demanding jobs.  And the number will only increase with the baby boomers. Seventeen percent say they expect to work indefinitely, though financial necessity will be a bigger reason for their passing up Golden Pond, according to the MetLife Mature Market Institute.

Policy analysts who fear an “entitlement crisis” with the retirement of 78 million boomers welcome the trend toward longer working lives, saying it offers financial benefits for older individuals and the economy as a whole.

Postponing retirement by just five years would boost the average worker’s annual retirement income by 56 percent and add $1 trillion a year to tax coffers by 2045, enough to erase Social Security’s deficit, says the Urban Institute’s Retirement Policy Center.

Older workers bear the burden of convincing businesses that they can remain productive, said William Zinke, a human resources executive who’s created a nonprofit group, the Center for Productive Longevity, to change employer attitudes.

“Although age discrimination is illegal, it exists far more than we’d like to think,” he said.  Many employers view older workers as particularly expensive, either because they demand higher salaries or incur more health care costs than younger workers, said Gordon Mermin, a policy analyst with the Urban Institute.  But by the time workers reach their 70s, many aren’t looking for traditional health benefits, because they’re covered by Medicare.

Only 15 percent have employer-provided health insurance, and 14 percent have pension coverage, the institute says. Only 27 percent work full-time, while 38 percent put in fewer than 20 hours a week.

Many businesses also worry that older workers are harder to train and will retire too soon for the investment in them to pay off. But older employees’ loyalty, sound judgment and even temperament can make them good role models for younger workers, Mr. Mermin said.

“The key is an understanding employer who’s willing to make some accommodations,” said Cynthia Metzler, president and chief executive of Experience Works, a national group that provides training and employment services to older workers.

Tax, pension and age anti-discrimination laws have discouraged employers from establishing formal “phased retirement” programs that allow workers to reduce their hours but stay on the payroll, Mr. Zinke said. But some employers do it informally. And plenty of older workers don’t need a boss’s approval. Among workers 70 and older, 42 percent are in business for themselves, the Urban Institute says.

KNOW THE TAX LAWS BEFORE YOU WORK

Some seniors complain that income tax laws discourage them from working.  Once you’re past your full retirement age, you won’t lose any of your Social Security benefits just because you’re working.  But a portion of your Social Security benefits may become taxable.

To determine whether you owe any federal income taxes on your benefits, the Internal Revenue Service looks at your “combined income.” That consists of your adjusted gross income (including wages from your job, pension payments and withdrawals from a 401(k) or IRA), any nontaxable interest income, plus half of your Social Security benefits.  If this combined income is between $25,000 and $34,000 (or between $32,000 and $44,000 for a couple filing jointly), you may have to pay income taxes on 50 percent of your Social Security benefits. That doesn’t mean you’ll pay half of your benefits in taxes. What it does mean is that 50 percent of your Social Security benefits must be added as income when filing your tax form.
 
If your combined income exceeds $34,000 (or $44,000 for a couple filing jointly), you may owe income taxes on up to 85 percent of your Social Security benefits. A tax adviser may be able to help you avoid this maddening situation: Say that on Dec. 31, the final dollar of annual income you earn from your job triggers taxes on your Social Security benefits.  That last dollar not only would be taxed as income, it also would prompt the taxation of a lot more income.

No matter how much you enjoy working in your golden years, you may wish you had stayed home that day.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today announced it will provide nearly $4.7 million for “caregiver assistance pilot programs” to expand and improve health care education and provide needed training and resources for caregivers who assist disabled and aging veterans in their homes.

“This funding will enhance support and training for the family members and other caregivers who sacrifice to care for disabled and aging veterans,” said Acting VA Secretary Gordon H. Mansfield.  “At VA, we’re committed to looking after caregivers who dedicate their own time and well-being to take care of loved ones who are veterans.”

The pilot programs will support eight caregiver projects across the country.  In addition, VA provides support and assistance through a variety of programs such as care management, social work service, care coordination, geriatrics and extended care, and through its nationwide volunteer programs.

Among the key services provided to caregivers are transportation, respite care, case management and service coordination, assistance with personal care (bathing and grooming), social and emotional support, and home safety evaluations.

Education programs teach caregivers how to obtain community resources such as legal assistance, financial support, housing assistance, home delivered meals and spiritual support.  In addition, caregivers are taught skills such as time management techniques, medication management, communication skills with the medical staff and the veteran, and ways to take better care of themselves.

Many of the projects use technology, including computers, Web-based training, video conferencing and teleconferencing to support the needs of caregivers who often cannot leave their homes to participate in support activities. 
 
The VA pilot programs include:

• At the Memphis (Tenn.) and Palo Alto (Calif.) VA medical centers, a project will provide education, support and skills-building to help caregivers manage both patient behaviors and their own stress.  This intervention will be provided in 14 Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) programs across the country and also to caregivers in non-HBPC settings at the Palo Alto VAMC.
• At the VA medical center in Gainesville, Fla., caregivers will take part in a Transition Assistance Program to provide skills training, education and supportive problem solving using videophone technology.
• At the VA Healthcare System of Ohio, headquartered in Cincinnati, caregiver advocates will be available around the clock to coordinate between VA and community services.
• At the VA Desert Pacific Network and the VA Sierra Nevada Healthcare System, VA will work with a community coalition to provide education, skills training and resources for caregivers of veterans with traumatic brain injury using computer-based telehealth, including Web, telephone and videoconferencing.
• At the VA medical center in Albany, N.Y., a pilot project will convert a three-hour workshop developed by the National Family Caregivers Association called “Communicating Effectively with Health Care Professionals” into a cost-effective multimedia format.
• At the Atlanta VA Medical Center, use of computer-based technology will provide instrumental help and emotional support to caregivers who live in remote areas or to those who cannot leave a patient alone.
• The Tampa VA Medical Center and the Miami VA Healthcare System are working on a collaborative project.  In the Tampa area, the current program will be expanded to provide 24-hour in-home respite care to temporarily relieve caregivers up to 14 days a year.  In Miami, the program will coordinate comprehensive community-based care services, including respite, home companions, adult day care and use of emergency response system.
• The VA Pacific Islands Health Care System will use the “medical foster home” model of care, in which caregivers in the community take veterans into their homes and provide 24-hour supervision.  This program will take place on the islands of Kauai, Hawaii, Maui and rural areas of Oahu.

There are numerous federal and state laws that protect “whistleblowers” who report unfair or illegal practices of their employers, of which New Jersey’s CEPA law is just one.  CEPA provides that employers may not retaliate against workers who disclose (or threaten to disclose) practices of the employer that they believe are violations of the law.  CEPA also protects employees who refuse to participate in unlawful or fraudulent activities or those that may harm the health, safety or welfare of the public.  Employees must be careful in asserting their rights under CEPA, as certain steps are necessary to ensure protection under the law.  If your employer asks you to do an act you feel is illegal or against public policy, it is important to contact an attorney as soon as possible.