US Department of Labor recovers more than $1.7 million in fringe benefits for 483 employees of VMT Long Term Care Management Inc.

WASHINGTON — VMT Long Term Care Management Inc. has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor for underpaying employees' health and welfare fringe benefits, violating the fringe benefits provisions of the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA).

The SCA requires contractors and subcontractors performing services on prime contracts in excess of $2,500 to pay service employees in various classes no less than the wage rates and fringe benefits — which include vacation, holidays, and health and welfare — found prevailing in the locality, or the rates (including prospective increases) contained in a predecessor contractor's collective bargaining agreement.

"Contractors have an obligation to pay service employees the proper fringe benefits for the work they perform," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "When they don't, the Labor Department will take the proper action to ensure workers receive the benefits to which they are entitled."

An investigation conducted by the department's Wage and Hour Division determined that from December 2006 to December 2008, VMT Long Term Care Management Inc. underpaid health and welfare fringe benefits to 483 employees, resulting in a total of $1,715,815 due those employees.

VMT Long Term Care Management Inc. was contracted by the government of the District of Columbia to manage and operate the Washington Center for Aging Services, a certified nursing facility and geriatric day treatment program for up to 55 elderly participants.

For more information about the SCA, call the Wage and Hour Division's toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243). Information is also available on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov/whd.

Comments

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog