Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 lawyers are recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, with ten receiving this honor for the first time. Additionally, 22 Hinshaw lawyers are included in The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

The national law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 75 of the firm's lawyers have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. In addition, 30 Hinshaw lawyers were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

The national law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 73 of the firm's lawyers have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. In addition, 28 Hinshaw lawyers were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Hinshaw partners Anthony Antognoli, Lisa Burman, and James Harbert have each authored chapters in the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) handbook titled Employment Termination: Procedures, Grounds, and Challenges 2022 Edition. IICLE is the premier provider of continuing legal education in Illinois. Founded in 1961, the Institute publishes a comprehensive set of handbooks designed by and for Illinois attorneys.

A team of Hinshaw authors from the firm's Labor and Employment practice contributed three chapters to the latest edition of the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education's (IICLE) Employment Termination: Procedures, Grounds, and Challenges handbook. The handbook provides information needed to establish the basis for employment termination, as well as the proper procedures to carry it out and responses to questions that may arise.

For more information, please visit Hinshaw's Annual Labor & Employment Seminar page.

For more information, please visit Hinshaw's 24th Annual Labor & Employment Seminar page.

Hinshaw's 22nd Annual Labor & Employment Seminar will be held on Thursday, October 12, 2017 at the Hilton Chicago-Northbrook in Northbrook, Illinois.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establish the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (the Program), which is designed to provide federal reimbursement to participating plan sponsors for a portion of the costs of providing health coverage to qualifying early retirees. This Alert summarizes the key elements of the Program and reviews the steps that plan sponsors must take in order to apply for Program reimbursements. On June 7, 2010, an application for participation in the Program was published in draft form on the HHS website. The application process has not yet been opened, but will begin sometime prior to June 30, 2010. The date on which applications will begin to be accepted, along with information as to how and where to send completed applications, will be posted on the HHS website in the coming weeks. Applications will be processed in the order in which they are received, and incomplete applications will be denied and must be resubmitted. Overview of the Program

One of the many changes affecting employers as a result of the Affordable Care Act is a new annual fee payable to the IRS applicable to self-insured health plans. Each employer who sponsors a self-insured health plan is subject to this new fee, called the "patient-centered outcomes research fee" or "PCORI fee." Most, but not all, flexible spending account plans are exempt. For the first plan year, the PCORI fee is equal to $1 multiplied by the "average number of lives covered." The PCORI fee must be paid to the IRS on an annual basis and is reported on IRS Form 720, Quarterly Excise Tax Return. The Form 720 and payment are due on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, for calendar year plans, as well as any other plan with a plan year that ended in October, November, or December of 2012. The next due date will be July 31, 2014. Because deposits are not required for this fee, employers are not required to pay the fee using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS). Please click here to access Form 720. The fee is reported on the line on page 2 in Part II labelled "Applicable self-insured health plans." Please click here to access the Form 720 Instructions, where more detailed information is set forth on pages 8 and 9. (A separate, corresponding fee is imposed on insurance companies for insured group health plans).

Among the changes made by last year’s health care reform law is a limitation on the ability of participants in Health Flexible Spending Account plans (Health FSAs) and Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) to receive reimbursements for certain expenses. As noted in the April 26, 2010 issue of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP’s Employment Practices Special Alert, as of January 1, 2011, Health FSAs and HRAs may no longer reimburse participants for expenses related to nonprescription drugs, other than insulin. Thus, expenses incurred for medicines or drugs may be paid or reimbursed by Health FSAs or HRAs only if the medicine or drug: (1) requires a prescription, (2) is available without a prescription and the individual obtains a prescription, or (3) is insulin. As this standard became effective January 1, 2011, cafeteria plans that offer Health FSAs are already required to be operated in compliance with the new reimbursement rules. Guidance issued last year, however, permits cafeteria plan sponsors to amend their plans retroactively to January 1, 2011, as long as such amendment is adopted no later than June 30, 2011 (regardless of the sponsor’s plan year). Failure to meet this deadline could have significant adverse tax consequences for an employer’s plan, including the possibility of all employee contributions to the plan being immediately taxable.The new limitation on reimbursements also applies to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) established for coverage under high-deductible health plans and to Archer Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). If account holders of HSAs and MSAs receive a distribution for expenses for nonprescription drugs in violation of the new rules, such distributions will be subject to a 20 percent excise tax, in addition to being fully taxable to the account holder. Another significant health care reform change impacting Health FSAs extends favorable federal tax treatment to medical expense reimbursements for an employee’s children who have not attained age 27 as of the end of the employee’s taxable year. Effective March 30, 2010, under a Health FSA, reimbursements for medical care are excluded from the employee’s gross income where they are provided for an employee’s adult child under the age of 27 as of the end of the employee’s taxable year, regardless of that child’s marital or dependent status. This change complements the mandate under health care reform that generally required employers to offer health care coverage for adult children up to age 26. It allows the cost of coverage or eligible expenses incurred for the adult children to be funded or reimbursed through a Section 125 cafeteria plan with pretax dollars. The rule also extends favorable federal tax treatment to employer-provide health coverage for an employee’s children who have not attained age 27. Any amendment to reflect this change will apply prospectively.Employers should review their plan documents now to ensure compliance with these new requirements. 

Arbitration Panel Exceeded Authority by Requiring Class Arbitration of ClaimsA supplier sued a group of shipping companies alleging antitrust violations, and sought to maintain the case as a class action. Later, other companies filed similar actions and the cases were consolidated. After the supplier demanded that the dispute be resolved by way of class arbitration, the parties agreed that an arbitrator must decide whether the arbitration agreement contained in the contract between them permitted arbitration of class issues on a class-wide basis. The arbitration panel found that class arbitration was permissible. The shipping companies sought to vacate that ruling, which led to the claims being filed in both district and appellate court as to whether the arbitration panel was authorized to determine that arbitration of class claims was proper in absence of express consent of the parties. The matter made its way to the United States Supreme Court, which held that imposing class arbitration upon individuals who did not agree to class arbitration would be inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, and that accordingly, the arbitrators exceeded their authority by requiring that the class arbitrate the claims even though the entire class had not agreed to do so, and even though there was no federal or state law compelling that result. This decision may have far-reaching implications for employers, who often require employees to arbitrate employment disputes.

Auto Salesman Terminated for Poor Sales Fails to Show Pretext for Discrimination

Honest Belief in Nondiscriminatory Reasons for Failure to Promote Bars Discrimination ClaimA city fire department did not promote four white firefighters who had applied for open positions of deputy chief and assistant chief. In each case, the fire chief was the final decision maker with regard to the applicants. The chief believed that the firefighters in question were not strong candidates for the open positions because they were, respectively: (1) negative and might undermine management and resist change; (2) unsupportive because the position of fire chief was coveted; (3) unsupportive because of actions taken to show dissatisfaction; and (4) soon to retire. The firefighters sued the city, alleging that the fire department failed to promote them because of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the firefighters' claim, holding that even if the court assumed that the firefighters had established a prima facie case of failure to promote, the firefighters had to establish pretext by showing that: (1) the fire department's nondiscriminatory reason was dishonest; and (2) its true reason was discriminatory intent. The court noted that even if a business decision seems unreasonable, pretext does not exist if the decision maker honestly believes the nondiscriminatory reason given. The firefighters presented no evidence that the fire chief did not believe the justifications given, and so could not establish pretext. Further, the court noted that before making the final promotion decision the fire department offered the positions to four different white males. Employers should conduct a selection process which does not include race as a determining factor, and keep records of their justifications for the reasons for selecting applicants within the process.Stockwell v. Harvey, No. 09-2355 (7th Cir. Mar. 12, 2010)