By Michelle Capezza (Member of the Firm, Epstein Becker Green) and Howard Gerver (President, ACA Managed Services)

Big DataAs employers prepare the Affordable Care Act information reporting filings for the 2016 year that will be due in 2017 (notably the 1094/1095 B&C), the good faith standard of compliance, and the potential for inaccuracies, is no longer available.  In order to seek a waiver of penalties for the 2016 filings made in 2017, an employer will need to meet a standard of reasonable cause and no willful neglect.  With this standard, an employer must show that there are significant mitigating factors or the failure was due to certain events outside their control and the filer acted responsibly.  While “responsibly” remains subjective, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the same level of quality assurance and audit rigor that is applied to other governmental reporting must be applied to the 1095 and 1094 IRS reporting processes. Also, at this time, anticipate that the filings will need to be made with the government, and to the employees (and other recipients), under the regular schedule without extensions: (i.e., the disclosures to employees will be due the last day of January following the calendar year in which coverage was provided; forms must be filed with the IRS by the last day of February if filing on paper or March if filing electronically (which is required for employers with 250 plus returns)).

Failure to timely file the Forms with the IRS and provide them to employees can lead to significant penalties (for example, currently large businesses are subject to a penalty of $260 per return up to a maximum of $3,178,500, as adjusting in successive years); this is not tax deductible.

The following is a checklist of issues that employers should consider when getting ready for 2017 ACA information reporting:

  1. Understand the Big Data Environment. Using Big Data algorithms, the IRS has the ability, as it increasingly works in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to identify contradictory data submitted on both individual employee forms and across multiple employees, which can lead to audits, as well as enforcement of the individual and employer mandate For example, in the March 2016 Congressional Budget Office Report concerning the federal subsidies for health insurance coverage for people under the age of 65, the government has already estimated that 3 million people will pay the individual mandate penalty in 2016.  In 2014, 7.9 million taxpayers paid approximately $1.6 billion in individual mandate penalties.

Moreover, from 2017-2026-the government projects employer mandate penalties of $228 billion.  Thus, there is clear anticipation that revenue will be generated and violations will be ascertained through the information reporting filings.  As carriers continue to withdraw from key markets and continue to incur material losses (billions of dollars are owed to carriers by the Federal government) the need to quickly enforce the employer penalties is even greater so the government can reimburse payors and providers the billions that are owed.

Given 1) the multi-billion dollar employer penalty budget and 2) the billions of dollars that have been/will be paid vis-à-vis the individual mandate, employers should thoroughly review their 2015 1095-C forms data and provide on-going QA of their 2016 data to mitigate risk.

It is imperative that employers confirm the integrity, accuracy and completeness of their employee data including: collection and verification of social security numbers of employees and dependents (as applicable), waiver information, eligibility determinations, offers of coverage (1095-C, line 14) and employee status/safe harbor codes (1095-C, line 16)

Employers should also know where the data resides, how to extract it, and confirm that it is consistent with unique employee identifiers (e.g. SSN). In addition, ensure that the responses on the forms do not contain conflicting codes (e.g., an employee would not be made a qualifying offer (Code 1A on Line 14 of Form 1095-C) while being in their respective limited assessment period (Code 2D on Line 16 of Form 1095-C).  These are the types of inconsistencies that can trigger a red flag with the government. Clearly the applicable data should be reviewed early and often.

In order to ensure that 2015 reporting was accurate, employers should audit last year’s forms data.  This way, errors as well as the underlying root cause can be identified and remedied to mitigate future risk.  Employers should also adequately plan for and execute internal controls.  For example, employers should perform a Data Diagnostic to calculate the expected number of offers (either 1A or 1E on line 14).  The same should be done for Series 2 codes on Line 16.  This way the actual results can be compared to the expected results.

  1. Ensure Proper Worker Classifications. Misclassified workers raise many issues not only from an employment law standpoint but also an employee benefit plan standpoint.  For group health plans, a key requirement is properly defining full time employees and equivalents to determine if an employer is an applicable larger employer under the employer mandate and that the requisite number of full time employees and their dependents are offered qualifying coverage.  We are now in an environment where applicable large employers must cover the requisite 95% of full time employees or risk exposure to penalties (it was 70% last year).  Properly identifying which workers are actually the employer’s employees, in addition to their hours of work, is a critical step.   This gets even more complicated when the employer has workers through alternative arrangements such as relationships with staffing firms. It should be noted that a service contract does not override the common law test for making a determination regarding employer status.  An employer should consider a self audit of worker classifications.
  1. Monitor changes in the applicable guidance.

Draft Forms. The new draft information reporting forms include changes such as: (a) the eliminated from form 1095-C  the transition relief codes for 2015 regarding 70% coverage of employees as opposed to 95% and the exemption from penalties if the employer had  less than 100 employees–code 1l and Code 2I (for noncalendar year plans); (b) Line 14 has a new Code IJ—used if minimum essential coverage providing minimum value is offered to an employee and conditionally offered to a spouse but not dependents. A common conditional offer occurs when coverage is offered to a spouse only if the spouse certifies he or she is not eligible for coverage under a plan sponsored by his or her own employer or not eligible for Medicare.  If this code is used it can lead to a penalty because coverage is not offered to dependents. Code I K is used if qualifying coverage is offered to the employee, dependents and conditionally to a spouse.  If either new code IJ or IK is used-line 15 of the 1095-C must be completed, (c) Offers of COBRA following a termination of employment should be coded with 1H (line 14) and 2 A (line 16) whether or not COBRA is elected.  For COBRA offers after a reduction in hours, treat as an offer of coverage on Line 14 1095-C, (d) Line 15 instructions clarify that the employee required contribution for Line 15 of Form 1095-C is the employee’s share of monthly cost for the lowest cost self only minimum essential coverage with minimum value offered.

Proposed Regulations.

a) Note that under proposed regulations issued July 6, 2016 regarding the premium tax credit, if an employee opts out of coverage and does not substantiate other coverage, this increases the costs of coverage for the employee when making an affordability determination and can mean that the employee was not offered affordable coverage.  This opt out payment must be added to the employee’s premium contribution and reported on the Form 1095-C.  If there is a conditional opt-out where the employee provides substantiation of other minimum essential coverage for the employee and their tax family (for example through a spouse’s plan but not individual coverage through the Marketplace) at least annually, this will not increase the cost for the affordability determination. The comment period on these regulations has just ended so it will be important to monitor any changes in final rules. Under transition rules, these rules will be effective with the 2017 plan year for opt out programs in effect prior to 2016.

b) In Proposed Regulations issued July 29, 2016 under Code Section 6055 and relating to the Form 1095-B and 1095 C part III, it is worth noting that if the employee is covered by multiple plans providing minimum essential coverage by the same sponsor, reporting is only required by one of the plans.  These rules apply month by month per individual.  Therefore, if for a month an employee is enrolled in a self-insured health plan and HRA by the same employer, the employer only reports one type of coverage but, if the employee drops coverage under the health plan, the employer reports coverage for the HRA for the remaining months.  Also reporting is not required for supplemental coverage where the employee is already covered by minimum essential coverage for which reporting is required or through Medicare, TRICARE or Medicaid.

  1. Ensure Accurate Names and Social Security Numbers.
  • Employers should remind employees to report any name changes due to life events such as marriage or divorce to both the Social Security Administration and the employer.
  • Employers should establish procedures for securing Forms W-4 and using that information to prepare forms W-2.
  • An initial solicitation must be made for a correct SSN when completing the information reporting requirements unless the employer has the employee’s SSN and uses it for all transactions with the employee.  When an employee begins work, it is usually considered an initial solicitation with completion of a Form W-2, W-4 and I-9.
  • When the employee’s SSN is missing or incorrect after the initial solicitation, the employer will generally need to conduct annual solicitations for a correct SSN and there should be a process for re-solicitation of required information. SSN solicitations are also made at time of an open enrollment.

The July 29, 2016 proposed regulations noted above provide that an employer acts responsibly if it engages in proper solicitation of SSNs which includes an initial and 2 subsequent annual solicitations (i.e, the first annual solicitation being within 75 days after open enrollment and the second by the December 31st of the following year). Employers should retain employee responses in employer records and note that solicitations were made.

  1. Corrected Returns. It’s worth commenting that in addition to getting ready for 2017 filings, there may be some clean up required for the 2015 forms that were just filed earlier this year.
  • Errors could be identified by an IRS error message, internal audit or by an employee.
  • A corrected return corrects an inaccurate return (such as Form 1095 B/C) or transmittal (1094-C) that was previously filed and accepted (with or without errors) by the IRS.
  • If a transmission or submission was REJECTED by the IRS-then a rejection requires a replacement -it is necessary to replace all records in the transmission or submission that was rejected.
  • Correcting errors is part of the good faith effort to file accurate and complete information returns.
  • Employers should have an internal review process to ensure correction of forms will not be necessary.
  1. Record Retention. It is important to document and retain proof to substantiate responses on the ACA information reporting forms, and, record retention policies should be updated to include ACA information reporting records.  Among the records employers should retain are (i) records of employees who were provided with an offer of coverage and corresponding dates, (ii) eligibility methodology and determinations, (iii) signed waivers or opt out forms, (iv) SSN solicitation records, (iv) controlled group determinations, (v) participant communications, (vi) affordability calculations.
  1. Marketplace Notice and IRS Penalty Notice. For the Marketplace Notices which some employers started to receive in early July, note that these are not the IRS Penalty Notices for employer mandate penalties which may start to be issued later this year.  The Marketplace Notice can be issued to large and small employers.  It is a notification that the particular employee purchased coverage in the current year and received a subsidy.  An employer has 90 days after the date of the notice to appeal and claim that the employee should not receive the premium tax credit.It is especially important for large employers to check records to determine if this employee was offered qualifying coverage, that the employee was properly classified and then to determine if it is necessary to challenge the employee’s receipt of the subsidy because this could be a trigger for later receipt of an IRS penalty notice.Therefore, thought should be given to setting the record straight and preparing defenses to a potential IRS penalty notice.  If the employer wins the Marketplace Notice appeal, the employee must pay back the subsidy received or offset any tax refunds.  The Marketplace appeals center will issue the decision.  An IRS penalty notice will indicate that the IRS believes the employer did not offer qualifying coverage during the prior year.  Employers will have a chance to respond and appeal the IRS penalty notices.  It is important to establish an approach for reviewing and responding to these notices.
  1. Corporate Transactions. In the merger and acquisition context, be mindful of representations and warranties regarding ACA compliance and information reporting requirements.  Diligence could include review of a sample of the forms that were filed by the target to assess whether they appear to have been completed properly, looking for incomplete or inconsistent codes on the forms, and anticipating potential liabilities.  Consideration should be given to factoring in potential penalties to purchase prices and escrow arrangements. A best practice is to perform a 1095-C and 1094-C audit during the due diligence process.
  1. Fiduciary Responsibility and Governance.  Health and welfare plans are subject to ERISA and the plan fiduciaries should ensure that they are maintaining these plans in compliance with applicable law, meeting the applicable reporting and disclosure requirements, and prudently selecting and monitoring those that assist in meeting these responsibilities.  Consideration should be given to enhancing fiduciary governance procedures, such as benefit committee guidelines and health plan administrative procedures to include ACA information reporting duties, if not done so already.
  1. Establish an ACA Information Reporting Team.  ACA compliance has many facets, and information reporting is a complex requirement.  Consideration should be given to designating a specific individual or team to address these disclosures. It is important for these individuals to examine data collection and integrity issues so that any mistakes from last year are not repeated.  Quality control and data privacy issues should also be addressed.  As part of their mission, the ACA Information Reporting Team should make on-going QA an embedded part of their process.

The ACA Information Reporting Team should also perform a 1095-C audit (and 1094-C audit) to make sure information was accurately reported. Employers should audit last year’s forms data.  This way, errors as well as the underlying root cause can be identified and remedied to mitigate future risk.  Employers should also adequately plan for and execute internal controls.  For example, employers should perform a Data Diagnostic to calculate the expected number of offers (either 1A or 1E on line 14).  The same should be done for Series 2 codes on Line 16.  This way the actual results can be compared to the expected results.

Consideration of these best practices and implementation of same will make a difference when completing the Forms and defending the responses in an audit or an appeal.  For more information regarding IRS reporting best practices and how to mitigate penalty and public relations risk, please visit www.ACAIRSbestpractices.com.

To register for this complimentary webinar, please click here.

I’d like to recommend an upcoming complimentary webinar, “EEOC Wellness Regulations – What Do They Mean for Employer-Sponsored Programs? (April 22, 2015, 12:00 p.m. EDT) presented by my Epstein Becker Green colleagues Frank C. Morris, Jr. and Adam C. Solander.

Below is a description of the webinar:

On April 16, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its long-awaited proposed regulations governing employer-provided wellness programs under the American’s with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Although the EEOC had not previously issued regulations governing wellness programs, the EEOC has filed a series of lawsuits against employers alleging that their wellness programs violated the ADA. Additionally, the EEOC has issued a number of public statements, which have concerned employers, indicating that the EEOC’s regulation of wellness programs would conflict with the regulations governing wellness programs under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and jeopardize the programs currently offered to employees.

During this webinar, Epstein Becker Green attorneys will:

  • summarize the EEOC’s recently released proposed regulations
  • discuss where the EEOC’s proposed regulations are inconsistent with the rules currently in place under the ACA and the implications of the rules on wellness programs
  • examine the requests for comments issued by the EEOC and how its proposed regulations may change in the future
  • provide an analysis of what employers should still be concerned about and the implications of the proposed regulations on the EEOC’s lawsuits against employers

Who Should Attend:

  • Employers that offer, or are considering offering, wellness programs
  • Wellness providers, insurers, and administrators

To register for this complimentary webinar, please click here.

My colleagues Frank C. Morris, Jr., Adam C. Solander, and August Emil Huelle co-authored a Health Care and Life Sciences Client Alert concerning the EEOC’s proposed amendments to its ADA regulations and it is a topic of interest to many of our readers.

Following is an excerpt:

On April 16, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its highly anticipated proposed regulations (to be published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015, for notice and comment) setting forth the EEOC’s interpretation of the term “voluntary” as to the disability-related inquiries and medical examination provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the ADA, employers are generally barred from making disability-related inquiries to employees or requiring employees to undergo medical examinations. There is an exception to this prohibition, however, for disability-related inquiries and medical examinations that are “voluntary.”

Click here to read the full Health Care and Life Sciences Client Alert.

One day before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) same-sex spouse final rule took effect on March 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in Texas v. U.S., staying the application of the Final Rule for the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska. This ruling directly impacts employers within the technology, media, and telecommunications industries who are located or have employees living in these four states.

Background

In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) as unconstitutional, finding that Congress did not have the authority to limit a state’s definition of “marriage” to “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”  Significantly, the Windsor decision left intact Section 2 of DOMA (the “Full Faith and Credit Statute”), which provides that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.  Further to the President’s directive to implement the Windsor decision in all relevant federal statutes, in June 2014, the DOL proposed rulemaking to update the regulatory definition of spouse under the FMLA. The Final Rule is the result of that endeavor.

As we previously reported, the Final Rule adopts the “place of celebration” rule, thus amending prior regulations which followed the “place of residence” rule to define “spouse.”  For purposes of the FMLA, the place of residence rule determines spousal status under the laws where the couple resides, notwithstanding a valid out-of-state marriage license.   The place of celebration rule, on the other hand, determines spousal status by the jurisdiction in which the couple was married, thus expanding the availability of FMLA leave to more employees seeking leave to care for a same-sex spouse.

The Court’s Decision

Plaintiff States Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska sued, arguing the DOL exceeded its authority by promulgating a Final Rule that requires them to violate Section 2 of the DOMA and their respective state laws prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.  The Texas court ordered the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction to stay the Final Rule pending a full determination of the issue on the merits.

The court first found that the Plaintiff States are likely to succeed on at least one of their claims, which assert that the Final Rule improperly conflicts with (1) the FMLA, which defines “spouse” as “a husband or wife, as the case may be” and which the court found was meant “to give marriage its traditional, complementarian meaning”; (2) the Full Faith and Credit Statute; and/or (3) state laws regarding marriage, which may be preempted by the Final Rule only if Congress intended to preempt the states’ definitions of marriage.

The court then held that the Final Rule would cause Plaintiff States to suffer irreparable harm because, for example, the Final Rule requires Texas agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as valid in violation of the Texas Family Code.

Lastly, although finding the threatened injury to both parties to be serious, the court decided that the public interest weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction against the DOL.  The court found in favor of upholding “the stability and consistency of the law” so as to permit a detailed and in-depth examination of the merits.  Additionally, the court pointed out that the injunction does not prohibit employers from granting leave to those who request leave to care for a loved one, but reasoned that a preliminary injunction is required to prevent the DOL “from mandating enforcement of its Final Rule against the states” and to protect the states’ laws from federal encroachment.

What This Means for Employers

Although the stay of the Final Rule is pending a full determination of the issue on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges likely will expedite and shape the outcome of the Texas court’s final ruling.  In Obergefell, the Supreme Court will address whether a state is constitutionally compelled under the Fourteenth Amendment to recognize as valid a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed in another jurisdiction and to license same-sex marriages.  Oral arguments in Obergefell are scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2015, and a final ruling is expected in late June of this year.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court decides Obergefell, however, employers in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska are advised to develop a compliant strategy for implementing the FMLA—a task that may be easier said than done.  Complicating the matter is a subsequent DOL filing in Texas v. U.S. where the DOL contends that the court’s order was not intended to preclude enforcement of the Final Rule against persons other than the named Plaintiff States, and thus applies only to the state governments of the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska.

While covered employers are free to provide an employee with non-FMLA unpaid or paid job-protected leave to care for their same-sex partner (or for other reasons), such leave will not exhaust the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement and the employee will remain entitled to FMLA leave for covered reasons.  We recommend that covered employers that are not located and do not have employees living in one of the Plaintiff States amend their FMLA-related documents and otherwise implement policies to comport with the Final Rule, as detailed in EBG’s Act Now Advisory, DOL Extends FMLA Leave to More Same-Sex Couples.  Covered employers who are located or have employees living in one of the Plaintiff States, however, should confer with legal counsel to evaluate the impact of Texas v. U.S. and react accordingly, which may depend on the geographical scope of operations.

Take 5 banner

Our colleagues Adam C. Solander, August Emil Huelle, Stuart M. Gerson, René Y. Quashie, Amy F. Lerman, Frank C. Morris, Jr., Kevin J. Ryan, and Griffin W. Mulcahey contributed to Epstein Becker Green’s recent issue of Take 5 newsletter.   In this special edition, we address important health care issues confronting technology, media, and communications employers:

  1. Potential ACA Changes Impacting Health Care Employers Under the New Congress
  2. Pending Supreme Court Cases Involving the Affordable Care Act
  3. Telemedicine and Employers: The New Frontier
  4. Wellness Programs Under EEOC Attack—What to Do Now
  5. Employer-Sponsored, On-Site Health Care

Read the full newsletter here.

Our colleague Mollie K. O’Brien at Epstein Becker Green wrote an advisory on a new law that will increase the protection of personal information under HIPPA by mandating encryption on all computerized data collected by health insurance carriers: “Beyond HIPAA: New Jersey Law Requires Encryption of Personal Data by Health Insurance Carriers.” Following is an excerpt:

In response to data breaches that have occurred across the United States, several of which involved the theft of laptop computers, beginning August 1, 2015, health insurance carriers in New Jersey will be obligated to do more to protect patient information than simply comply with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). A new law, signed by Governor Chris Christie on January 9, 2015, specifically requires health insurance carriers to encrypt electronically gathered and stored personal information.

The key terms in the law are defined as follows:

  • “Health insurance carriers” means “an insurance company, health service corporation, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, or health maintenance organization authorized to issue health benefits plans in this State.”
  • “Personal information” means “an individual’s first name or first initial and last name linked with any one or more of the following data elements: (1) Social Security number; (2) driver’s license number of State identification card number; (3) address; or (4) identifiable health information.”

Read the full advisory here.

Our colleague August Emil Huelle at Epstein Becker Green has an Employee Benefits Insight Blog post that will be of interest to many of our readers: “Legislation Introduced to Change Full-Time Employee Definition under the Affordable Care Act.”

Following is an excerpt:

On January 7, 2015, U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D–IN) along with Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, legislation that would amend the definition of a “full-time employee” under the Affordable Care Act to an employee who works an average of 40 hours per week.  In the coming days, the House is expected to vote on its own version of this legislation, the Save American Workers Act.

The teeth of the Affordable Care Act have the ability to sink excise taxes on employers who do not offer affordable healthcare coverage to full-time employees, which the Affordable Care Act defines as employees who work an average of 30 hours per week.  In announcing the introduction of the legislation, Senator Collins argued that the current definition “creates a perverse incentive for businesses to cut their employees’ hours so they are no longer considered full time.”  The implication being that the Forty Hours is Full Time Act will increase employee wages because the employers who reportedly reduced employee hours below 30 per week in an effort to avoid costs associated with providing healthcare coverage to employees (or the tax for not providing coverage to employees) are the same employers who will raise employee hours above 30 per week if they are not faced with such costs.

Read the full blog post here.

Our Epstein Becker Green colleagues have released a new Take 5 newsletter: “Five ACA Issues that Employers Should Be Following” by David W. Garland, Adam C. Solander, and Brandon C. Ge. Below is an excerpt:

Employers have about three months to finalize their employer mandate compliance plans under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). While most employers are in the final stages of planning, this month’s Take 5 will address five ACA issues that employers should be aware of as they move forward:

  1. ACA-related litigation
  2. Employer mandate reporting
  3. Section 510 liability
  4. Alternatives to traditional plan offerings
  5. The looming Cadillac tax

Read the full newsletter here.

Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions: “Divided Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Harris and Hobby Lobby.”

Following is an excerpt:

As expected, the last day of the Supreme Court’s term proved to be an incendiary one with the recent spirit of Court unanimity broken by two 5-4 decisions in highly-controversial cases. The media and various interest groups already are reporting the results and, as often is the case in cause-oriented litigation, they are not entirely accurate in their analyses of either opinion.

In Harris v. Quinn, the conservative majority of the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, held that an Illinois regulatory program that required quasi-public health care workers to pay fees to a labor union to cover the costs of wage bargaining violated the First Amendment. The union entered into collective-bargaining agreements with the State that contained an agency-fee provision, which requires all bargaining unit members who do not wish to join the union to pay the union a fee for the cost of certain activities, including those tied to the collective-bargaining process. …

An even more controversial decision is the long-awaited holding in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Headlines already are blasting out the breaking news that “Justices Say For-Profits Can Avoid ACA Contraception Mandate.” Well, not exactly. …

Both sides of the discussion are hailing Hobby Lobby as a landmark in the long standing public debate over abortion rights. It is not EBG’s role to enter that debate or here to render legal advice, but we respectfully suggest that the decision’s reach is already being overstated by both sides. In the first place, the decision does not allow very many employers to opt out of birth control coverage – only closely-held for-profit companies that have a good-faith ideological core, as clearly was the case for Hobby Lobby. That renders such companies functionally the same as non-profits that are exempted from the mandate by the government. Publicly-held companies are not affected by the decision (though some are likely to argue that Citizens United might require such an extension. Nor are privately-held companies that can’t demonstrate an ingrained belief system.

Read the full post here.