The Dangers of Reimbursing Employees for Individual Health Insurance Premiums — and the Limited Relief for Small Employers

Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") in 2010, employers were able to reimburse their employees for the premiums those employees paid for individual health insurance. This long-standing practice was changed beginning in 2014 with the issuance of new guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor. Under that guidance, such "employer payment plans" are deemed to be noncompliant with the market reforms implemented under the ACA. The penalties for failure to comply with the market reforms can be severe — as much as $100 per employee, per day. More ›

Delivery Driver Loses Harassment Claim for Failing to Follow Complaint Procedure

It's important for employees to follow company policy, but it's even more important for employers to have those policies in the first place. In this case, the Fifth Circuit dealt a harsh blow to an employee who complained, but complained to the wrong people. More ›

Eighth Circuit: Worker's Blood Pressure was not FMLA-Qualifying Condition Absent Multiple Visits or Supervised Treatment

Kendrick Johnson was at work, and he had a headache so bad he felt like his head was going “to explode.” So he left his shift and went to a walk-in clinic. There, he received a prescription for blood pressure medication and a note stating that he was to remain off work for three days. Six days later, he was out of a job. Johnson sued his employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging that he was denied leave to which he was entitled, which raised the obvious issue of whether he even had a “serious medical condition” under the law. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question last week, providing essential guidance for employers.  More ›

Abercrombie & Fitch Doesn't look too good to Supreme Court

In a case we discussed earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court did not appear impressed with Abercrombie & Fitch's recent argument that a hijab wearing applicant needed to ask for religious accommodation before they were obliged to grant it to her. News sources have reported that oral argument this past Wednesday seemed to favor Samantha Elauf's right to an accommodation even though the teenage, Muslim job applicant in Tulsa did not explicitly tell Abercrombie & Fitch that she was wearing the black head scarf for religious reasons.   More ›

Fourth Circuit Finds EEOC's Expert Report Unreliable Under Federal Rules of Evidence

As part of an employer's business in providing integrated services for high level events, it commenced background checks of all prospective employees, including credit checks for positions dealing with "credit sensitive" information. An employee who was denied a position based on the employer's credit filed suit with the EEOC. The EEOC later issued a letter of determination that the employer's background and credit checks violated Title VII. The claim was later amended to state the background and credit checks also had a disparate impact on black applicants. More ›

Department of Labor: Married Same-Sex Couples have FMLA Rights Regardless of State of Residence

The U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") recently announced its Final Rule changing the definition of "spouse" in the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") to include most same-sex married couples. The Final Rule becomes effective March 27, 2015.   More ›

Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act of 2014, California's Paid Sick Leave Law, to take Effect

—Starting July 1, 2015, California will join numerous other states in requiring employers provide employees with paid sick leave pursuant to the Health Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. More ›

Spiritual Director Doesn't have a Prayer when it Comes to her Discrimination and Termination Claims

Religious employers can rejoice once again, as yet another court upholds the ministerial exception and dismisses an employee's discrimination and termination claims.

For those who are not familiar with this defense, the ministerial exception basically says that the government cannot step in and second-guess a religious entity's decision to hire and fire its ministerial employees. Doing so would potentially violate the First Amendment and would run afoul of the separation of church and state. This means that ministerial employees of religious employers cannot sue for things like discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or termination, because that would be asking the court, in essence, to decide whether the religious employer was right in doing what it did. More ›

Supervisor not "Qualified Individual" Under ADA after Failing DOT Medical Certification

Determining the essential functions of a job can be tricky, especially if there is no information or documentation with which to compare and consider. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered job qualifications in the context of essential functions, and ultimately found that the employee failed to demonstrate that he was qualified or could perform the essential functions of his position after failing a required DOT medical certification. As a result, he could not maintain his ADA claim against his former employer.  More ›

Supreme Court: Ordinary Contract Principles do not Allow Inference of Vesting Rights Absent Clear and Express Language

In 2000, M&G Polymers purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in Apple Grove, WV. At that time, M&G entered into a collective-bargaining agreement and a related Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement (P & I Agreement) with the union. The P & I Agreement provided for medical coverage with a full employer contribution to be provided for the duration of the agreement, subject to future negotiations. When those agreements expired, M&G announced that it would require retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. Several retirees sued M&G in federal district court, alleging that the P & I Agreement created a vested right to a lifetime contribution of free healthcare benefits. More ›