In Porter v. Elk Remodeling, Inc., the Eastern District of Virginia denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment on a former employee’s ERISA and Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”) claims based on evidence that the employer had discriminated against the employee with respect to rights under an employee benefit plan as well as gender. A copy of the opinion is here. More after the break.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.Posts Tagged ‘ERISA’
Firing Your Employees To Keep Them Off Your Health Insurance Plan Is A Bad Idea
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010Increase in Temporary Workers Warrants Review of Employee Benefit Plans
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010The temporary employment services industry has shown growth for the fifth consecutive month since August 2009. This means that employers are likely hiring more employees with other-than-permanent employment status. An article in HR Magazine notes that this trend merits a review of a company’s benefit plans to ensure that coverage is being provided only to those employees entitled to it. The article suggests that the language in the plans include definitions for temporary and permanent employees so as to avoid any confusion as to which employees fall into a particular category. The article also cautions that employers should review all company documents that relate to employee benefits plans, including but not limited to summary plan descriptions, insurance policies, and company forms. In the past, this has been a fertile area for litigation.
Source: HR Magazine, April 2010: If Adding Temps, Audit Your Benefits Plans
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.Supreme Court Decides Employer Not Required To Include Pre-Act Pregnancy Leave In Pension Calculation
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009In AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that AT&T did not have to include an employee’s time on pregnancy leave prior to the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act when making pension calculations. The Court’s opinion can be found here. Scotus Blog has an opinion recap here. Scotus Wiki has the case documents here. The always reliable Connecticut Employment Law Blog has commentary on the limited relevance of the decision to employers today here.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.Recent 4th Circuit Decisions of Interest
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — already famous for not publishing many of its decisions — has continued the trend this year with very few published decisions. Several recent employment law decisions, however, are published decisions and warrant comment here. We also note a recent unpublished decision that might be of interest.
Mental Health Parity
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008A little noticed part of the “bailout bill” recently passed by Congress is the inclusion of the “Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.” This Act amends ERISA and essentially mandates that group health plans provide equal benefits and deductibles for physical and mental illnesses. A summary of the bill is after the break.
Retaliatory Discharge Under ERISA
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008For those interested in ERISA, the Boston ERISA and Insurance Litigation Blog has a post here on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit holding that a plaintiff must produce evidence of specific intent to retaliate for filing a claim for benefits in order to survive summary judgment.
4th Circuit Issues ERISA Benefits Review Decision
Friday, June 20th, 2008The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued a published decision holding that a plan administrator does not have discretionary authority, but only mere authority, under an ERISA plan that only designates the plan administrator to make timely benefit determinations. Accordingly, it remanded the benefits claim for de novo review, as opposed to the more deferential review for discretionary decisions.
Former Employee Awarded Severance Pay Benefits Under ERISA Plan By Fourth Circuit
Monday, May 12th, 2008In Ahuja v. Ericsson Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed an award of summary judgment in favor of the Ericsson Plan and remanded the case to the district court for the entry of an award in favor of the plaintiff, a former Ericsson employee who challenged the Plan Administrative Committee’s denial of severance pay benefits.
Claimant Denied Benefits From ERISA Plan Sponsored By Company He Never Worked For
Tuesday, April 15th, 2008In a rather strange ERISA case, a plaintiff filed suit after the ERISA plan administrator denied his claim that sought retirement benefits pursuant to a Plan titled Kroger 30-And-Out even though he was never an employee of Kroger. The case is Beckner v. American Benefit Corp., et. al. (4th Cir. April 10, 2008). The 4th Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits.
Supreme Court Update
Wednesday, February 20th, 2008EEOC Issues Retiree Health Rule
Monday, December 31st, 2007The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the release of new regulations regarding retiree health benefits on December 26, 2007. The rule allows employers who provide retiree health benefits to continue the practice of coordinating those benefits with Medicare, without ensuring that Medicare eligible retirees are receiving the same benefits as younger retirees.
FedEx Class Action Certified
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007On October 15, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana certified a class of pickup and delivery drivers as to claims that the plaintiffs were misclassified as “independent contractors” under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and to common law claims for rescission, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The class includes 102 current drivers and an unknown number of former drivers. The plaintiffs seek rescission of their independent contractor agreements, repayment of costs and expenses, and payment of unpaid overtime.
The court also certified a national class with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims for a determination of participant status and entitlement to benefits under ERISA. According to the Court, FedEx Ground employs approximately 12,000 pickup and delivery drivers.
Here is the court’s opinion: In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, No. 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN (N.D.Ind. Oct. 15, 2007).
The case also contains a lengthy Daubert analysis with respect to FedEx’s motions. The Daubert challenge was overruled, but the court decided to disregard the experts’ testimony.
This case highlights the serious consequences for misclassifying workers as “independent contractors.” FedEx also recently lost an appeal before the California Court of Appeals (Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., B189031 (Cal. Ct. App. June 13 2007) involving the issue of whether their single work zone drivers were employees or independent contractors under California law with respect to their right to entitlement to reimbursement for work-related expenses. FedEx’s decision not to renew the contracts of all of the single work zone drivers in California after that decision has sparked additional litigation.
