Tag: employer

Looking to Engage, Empower, Achieve, or Improve, and Processes or Structure – Risk Management and COSO 2017 Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Should Interest You

This post might also be called: why risk management should interest you as an employee, employer, student, educator, product or service provider, executive officer, director, or anyone who is trying to achieve or improve something.

I read a fair number of articles discussing the benefits of engaging and empowering employees and other people. But I see far fewer articles discussing a structure or processes for when employees or people are empowered or engaged. Let me suggest that you use risk management and the COSO 2017 enterprise risk management (ERM) framework to add structure or processes to your engagement, empowerment, etc.

Risk management and the COSO ERM framework are premised on identifying objectives, and then designing and implementing steps, or actions, or processes, or tasks to succeed in satisfying those objectives. So, just as examples, the framework can be used if you are dealing with a product or a service and if you are an employer, or an employee, or a supplier or vendor, or if you are an educator or a student, or if you are putting on an event or you are going to be a presenter at an event, or whatever, etc. And the framework can be used, as examples, to design or make a better or successful design, product, service, event, presentation, innovation, or learning experience, or to increase safety, or to increase efficiency or effectiveness, or to better get your message or point across, or to increase engagement and empowerment, or whatever, etc.

Most likely you already do some form or manner of risk management or enterprise risk management for some objectives, or perhaps for many objectives. Sometimes risk management is required, such as the requirement that boards and audit committees engage in oversight of risk management for at least some business entities, which also of course means that the entity must have some manner of risk management to oversee. And sometimes risk management process are required for certain specific products, services, industries, or other situations, and may also involve compliance with laws, statutes, regulations, rules, etc.

Risk management and enterprise risk management should be integrated into the organization’s regularly, ongoing and constant day-to-day activities and decision making processes to achieve strategies, objectives and tasks successfully – risk management and enterprise risk management should not be viewed as separate or standalone processes that occur only on an occasional or periodic basis.

Here is a link to the COSO enterprise risk management page, https://www.coso.org/Pages/erm.aspx

Below see also my Overview Of A Risk Management Process That You Can Use, a listing of the COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework components and principles, and a summary of the framework implementation tiers (i.e., the extent to which an entity has implemented risk management) for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework For Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.

David Tate, Esq.

 

 

 

New York City Adds Law Requiring Reasonable Accommodation “Cooperative Dialogue” And Documentation

I have copied and pasted below the recently enacted New York City Local Law requiring the parties (in situations of employment, housing and public accommodations) to engage in “cooperative dialogue” about reasonable accommodations for the various situations listed, including, for example, for disability, pregnancy and childbirth, religious, and domestic violence needs and situations).

In particular, even if your situation is not covered by New York City law, I believe you will find interesting the definition of “cooperative dialogue” and how the cooperative dialogue should be conducted and documented. On those two points, the law provides as follows:

Cooperative dialogue. The term “cooperative dialogue” means the process by which a covered entity and a person entitled to an accommodation, or who may be entitled to an accommodation under the law, engage in good faith in a written or oral dialogue concerning the person’s accommodation needs; potential accommodations that may address the person’s accommodation needs, including alternatives to a requested accommodation; and the difficulties that such potential accommodations may pose for the covered entity

* * * * * *

(d)  Upon reaching a final determination at the conclusion of a cooperative dialogue pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (c) of this subdivision, the covered entity shall provide any person requesting an accommodation  who participated in the cooperative dialogue with a written final determination identifying any accommodation granted or denied.

 (e) The determination that no reasonable accommodation would enable the person requesting an accommodation to satisfy the essential requisites of a job or enjoy the right or rights in question may only be made after the parties have engaged, or the covered entity has attempted to engage, in a cooperative dialogue.

The law enacts reasonable accommodation “cooperative dialogue” and documentation requirements that are more specific than the currently existing law. We will see if such specific requirements are similarly enacted by California statewide, or by local cities in California.

Best to you,

David Tate, Esq.

————————————————————————————————–

Below is the recently enacted New York City Local Law:

To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, to require covered entities to engage in a cooperative dialogue with persons who are or may be entitled to reasonable accommodations

Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

Section 1.  Section 8-102 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Cooperative dialogue. The term “cooperative dialogue” means the process by which a covered entity and a person entitled to an accommodation, or who may be entitled to an accommodation under the law, engage in good faith in a written or oral dialogue concerning the person’s accommodation needs; potential accommodations that may address the person’s accommodation needs, including alternatives to a requested accommodation; and the difficulties that such potential accommodations may pose for the covered entity.

§ 2. Section 8-107 of the administrative code of the city of New York is hereby amended by adding a new subdivision 28 to read as follows:

28. Reasonable accommodation; cooperative dialogue.

(a) Employment. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, labor

organization or employment agency or an employee or agent thereof to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation or who the covered entity has notice may require such an accommodation:

(1) For religious needs as provided in subdivision 3 of this section;

(2) Related to a disability as provided in subdivision 15 of this section;

(3) Related to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition as provided in subdivision 22 of this section; or

(4) For such person’s needs as a victim of domestic violence,  sex  offenses  or  stalking  as provided in subdivision 27 of this section.

(b) Public accommodations. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person who is the owner, franchisor, franchisee, lessor, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation or who the covered entity has notice may require an accommodation related to disability as provided in subdivision 15 of this section.

(c) Housing accommodation. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease or approve the sale, rental or lease of a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or an interest therein, or any agency or employee thereof to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation or who the covered entity has notice may require an accommodation related to disability as provided in subdivision 15 of this section.

(d)  Upon reaching a final determination at the conclusion of a cooperative dialogue pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (c) of this subdivision, the covered entity shall provide any person requesting an accommodation  who participated in the cooperative dialogue with a written final determination identifying any accommodation granted or denied.

(e) The determination that no reasonable accommodation would enable the person requesting an accommodation to satisfy the essential requisites of a job or enjoy the right or rights in question may only be made after the parties have engaged, or the covered entity has attempted to engage, in a cooperative dialogue.

(f) Rights and obligations set forth in this subdivision are supplemental to and independent of the rights and obligations provided by subdivisions 3, 15, 22 and 27. A covered entity’s compliance with this subdivision is not a defense to a claim of not providing a reasonable accommodation under provisions of title 8 other than this subdivision.