Lawyers are advising employers to beef up their health-related travel benefits to emphasize equal access for all employees as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission begins to target employers that have expanded travel coverage for abortions.
EEOC’s charges come as new data indicate the rate of abortions accessed by Americans has ticked up, reversing a years-long decline, according to a new census from the Guttmacher Institute.
While litigation over state bans simmers in several states, abortion activists scored a win in Indiana after a judge ruled the state’s ban violates religious freedom protections enacted by statehouse Republicans. Abortion access has been temporarily restored in Indiana while litigation continues.
A North Carolina health plan’s refusal to cover gender dysphoria treatment violated the Affordable Care Act. According to this Law360 article, the December ruling by US District Judge Loretta C. Biggs is a win for participants and parents of transgender children enrolled in the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees. McDermott’s Warren Haskel, Dmitriy Tishyevich and Lauren H. Evans represented the health plan’s participants.
Following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, many employers extended travel benefits to women residing in states where abortion or reproductive health procedures may now be unlawful. Recently, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner Andrea Lucas filed a Commissioner’s Charge against at least three companies alleging that doing so violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Although these charges are not public, it’s believed they mirror a letter that Sharon Fast Gustafson, the former EEOC General Counsel, recently sent en masse to employers around the country also alleging such travel programs violate federal anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC has since issued a statement that Gustafson’s views are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the EEOC.
When Title VII was amended in 1978 by the Pregnancy Act amendments, language was added requiring pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions be treated equally with other medical conductions under an employer’s “fringe benefit programs.” Lucas asserts that providing travel benefits for those seeking abortions provides preferential treatment to women, thus constituting gender discrimination. Her contention is also that travel benefits further implicate religious discrimination by favoring those who terminate pregnancies over those who, for religious reasons, carry a child to term. Her final contention is that the provision of travel benefits violates the ADA, which she claims requires parity of benefits for those with physical disabilities.
Employers are now asking whether Lucas’ and Gustafson’s position may be the beginning of litigation by the EEOC or private plaintiffs and whether they can take measures to address the legal arguments being raised.
First, it is doubtful the EEOC will be suing. While Title VII and the ADA authorize a single commissioner to file a Commissioner’s Charge, that Charge will be investigated like any other Charge of Discrimination. If cause is found, EEOC procedure requires in cases garnering public attention (which this most certainly is) that litigation may only be commenced if a majority of the Commissioners (minus the Commissioner who brought the Charge) vote in favor of doing so. In the absence of a quorum, then only the General Counsel of the EEOC may initiate suit. At this time, Lucas would not appear to have such votes.
Second, employers can and should draft around these contentions to prepare for private suits. Specifically, such travel benefits should cover not only abortion and/or reproductive health, but also all covered services or procedures that are unavailable within a covered individual’s state of residence or area, regardless of the individual’s gender, pregnancy or childbirth status, or disability status. This would make the benefits “available” to everyone.
Finally, there is a suggestion that, even with such drafting, this travel benefit will still be utilized primarily by non-Christian women, thus supporting a disparate impact claim based on religious discrimination. This is an overreach. Title VII claims require an adverse employment action such as an employee who requests but is denied a travel benefit due [...]
An employer group says the federal government erred in arguing that a Seattle benefits mandate for hotel workers doesn’t conflict with federal law. According to this Law360 article, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) asked the US Supreme Court to review a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that backed the Seattle ordinance despite arguments from the US Department of Labor that the law doesn’t contradict the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. McDermott’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos represent ERIC.
On October 11, 2022, the US Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations to modify how affordability under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is determined for an offer of coverage to a family member by an employer-sponsored group health plan, effective for the tax year beginning after December 31, 2022. By changing the affordability analysis to look at the total cost to cover family members—rather than the cost to only the employee—the new rule expands eligibility to receive premium tax credits (PTCs) in the ACA marketplace to an employee’s spouse and dependents.
On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which contains prescription drug pricing reform provisions. The three main Medicare prescription drug pricing reform provisions included are as follows:
Drug Price Negotiations: Allows the federal government to negotiate for a select number of vaccines and/or drugs
Inflation-Based Rebates: Mandates that manufacturers pay a rebate to the federal government when the list prices of Part B or Part D drugs grow at a faster rate than the inflation rate
Part D Benefit Redesign: Implements an out-of-pocket maximum for beneficiaries at $2,000 and redistributes liability among manufacturers, health plans, patients and the federal government across phases of the Part D benefit starting in 2024.
Leveraging data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) Medicare Drug Spending Dashboard and FDA databases, McDermott+Consulting has identified the potential list of drugs subject to negotiations.
This information is particularly valuable for pharmaceutical companies, health plans, patients, pharmacies and other stakeholders as they evaluate and consider the implications of this legislation. In less than one year, on September 1, 2023, the Health and Humans Services (HHS) Secretary will publish the first list of selected drugs subject to drug price negotiations. Understanding the statutorily mandated negotiations framework, timeline and potential drugs that may be included is critical to support stakeholders’ efforts to obtain optimal outcomes.
This report describes the drug price negotiation program, an implementation timeline for drug price reforms from the IRA and information on which drugs are likely to be first subject to price negotiation.
On September 7, 2022, a US district court judge for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling that preventive care provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring private insurance plans to cover drugs that prevent HIV infection at no cost to patients violate religious rights.
The ACA requires that private insurers cover certain preventive health services, including STD screenings and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prevention drugs. In his ruling, the judge found that that the rights of the employers that brought suit have been violated under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by the requirement that they sponsor health insurance that covers sexual health services such as PrEP drugs that help prevent the spread of HIV.
It is not yet clear whether enforcement will occur immediately and whether coverage requirements will be blocked for just those who brought suit, for everyone in Texas or nationwide. The US Department of Health and Human (HHS) is expected to appeal the ruling.
The US Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade has created more complexity to the country’s patchwork of abortion laws. In this Managed Healthcare Executive article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii offers perspective about how insurers are navigating healthcare plans state-by-state.
A recent US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case supplies answers to many questions left open in 401(k) fee litigation cases after the US Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in Hughes v. Northwestern University. Specifically, to survive a motion to dismiss in the Seventh Circuit, the recent ruling in Albert v. Oshkosh Corp. reiterated that plaintiffs must allege both high fees and substandard services or performance in comparison to other similar 401(k) plans.
The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has led to a flurry of confusion and questions from employers. In this Benefits Canada article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii explains how some states are imposing criminal penalties for anyone who assists with abortion within their borders.
“If a court determines state abortion restrictions are generally applicable criminal laws, then potentially, ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plans can be subject to criminal penalties if they provide abortion services, including travel benefits,” Raaii said.
Subscribe
