Recently in Benefits Category

Delaware Mini-COBRA Law Grows

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn January 15, 2014In: Benefits, Delaware Specific, Legislative Update

Email This Post | Print this Post

Editor's Note:  This post was written by Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway's Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections. 

Delaware's Mini-COBRA law, enacted in May 2012, allows qualified individuals who work for employers with fewer than 20 employees to continue their coverage at their own cost, for up to 9 months after termination of coverage.  When it was passed, the legislature provided that the provisions of the Mini-COBRA statute:

shall have no force or effect if the Health Care bill passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States of America in 2010 is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America or the provisions addressed by this Act are preempted by federal law on January 1, 2014, whichever first occurs.health care

I'm not sure what the Legislature meant when they provided that the Mini-COBRA statue would be preempted by federal law on January 1, 2014 but the intent was for the Mini-COBRA law to sunset on that date. However, in a little-publicized move in July of 2013, the legislature eliminated the January 1, 2014 sunset date for Mini-COBRA. They described their rationale for doing so as follows:

The Mini-COBRA Bill was originally passed as a short-term bill that was needed until the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") became applicable to states, which was to occur on January 1, 2014. However, because PPACA's legislation relating to small employer group health policies now permits insurance companies to impose a ninety (90) day waiting period prior to the effective date of coverage, which was not anticipated when the Mini-COBRA Bill was passed, it is desirable to remove the sunset provision of the Mini-COBRA Bill so that the Mini-COBRA Bill remains in the Delaware Code, at least until a point in time when PPACA or other law may no longer permit an insurance company to impose waiting periods.

I initially thought that the Legislature provided for a January 1, 2014 sunset date because that is the date that coverage begins under the healthcare exchanges, which do not impose waiting periods in the typical COBRA scenario.  Thus, an individual terminated from a small employer could purchase his or her coverage for at least the 90-day waiting period from the exchange rather than requiring the former employer's insurer to provide the mini-COBRA benefit.  In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees regular COBRA benefit administration, has issued revised model COBRA Notices that inform the qualified beneficiaries that they can acquire COBRA coverage through their former employer or they can obtain new coverage from the healthcare exchange.

The Immediate Impact of the DOMA Ruling for Delaware Employers

Posted by Lauren Moak RussellOn July 8, 2013In: Benefits, Cases of Note, Discrimination, Sexual Orientation, U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Email This Post | Print this Post

Delaware began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on July 1, 2013, less than a week after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Delaware will no longer perform civil unions pursuant to the Civil Union Equality Act, which was passed into law in 2010. Couples who entered into a civil union prior to July 1 may convert their civil union into a legally recognized marriage or wait until July 1, 2014, when all remaining civil unions will be automatically converted.

The Court's DOMA ruling is expected to affect an estimated 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and privileges. For Delaware employers, the impact is potentially significant. Delaware employers must now extend all federal benefits to gay married couples that were previously made available to straight married couples. The impact also is immediate. Unlike with new legislation, there will be no delay between the Court's ruling and an employer's obligation to extend benefits.

Although the Supreme Court's decision will impact who is eligible for benefits, the procedures remain unchanged. For example, the process for requesting and reviewing FMLA leave, COBRA coverage, and other federally mandated benefits of employment will not change.

One step employers should consider is possible adjustments to tax and health-insurance forms. Spouses that could not previously "claim" one another on federal tax forms may need to submit new IRS Form W-4s. In addition, if your company offers ERISA-covered health-insurance plans and did not previously extend benefits to gay couples, those plans will now be open to the enrollment of gay spouses. This means that, if your company offers health insurance coverage to the straight spouses of its employees, the same benefits must now be extended to gay spouses. In addition, gay spouses will now be the primary beneficiary on all 401(k) plans.

In the end, Delaware employers are likely in a better position to adapt to the Supreme Court's decision, since benefits have been extended under State law since January 1, 2012. Employers should keep in mind that the same benefits must be extended and the same processes will still apply to same-sex married couples. In the event that you think it may be necessary to deviate from this rule of thumb for some unusual circumstances, consider consulting legal counsel before doing so.

In the U.S. Unlawfully But Eligible for Workers' Comp?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn October 25, 2012In: Benefits, Cases of Note, Delaware Specific, Hiring

Email This Post | Print this Post

Is an employee who is in the country illegally a covered "employee" under the Workers' Compensation laws? That was the question of first impression presented to the Delaware Superior Court in Del. Valley Field Servs. v. Ramirez, (PDF) No. 12A-01-007-JOH (Sep. 13, 2012). The court concluded that the answer is "yes," and ordered that the former employee, who has since been deported to Honduras, is eligible to receive benefits under Delaware's workers-compensation statute.

Facts
The employee, Saul Melgar Ramirez, was hired in April 2010 as an "independent contractor'"--which the term the court uses to say that Ramirez was paid in cash. In January 2011, he was converted to a regular employee and added to the payroll. When told by his boss that he would need a Social Security number for his I-9 documentation, Ramirez bought a fake SSN card for $180. In February, the payroll service informed the employer that the number was false. Ramirez was deported in March.

In late January, shortly after he was converted to employee status, Ramirez fell down six steps and landed on his back. The company's president, who witnessed the fall, reported the accident to the company's workers' compensation carrier and made arrangements for Ramirez to get medical treatment. The treating physician determined that Ramirez was totally disabled.

Issues
The Industrial Board awarded benefits to Ramirez. (See Cassandra Robert's cleverly named post about the Board's decision, The Dearly Deported--Illegal Alien Status Does Not Work a Forfeiture in Delaware). The employer appealed to the Delaware Superior Court, where it made several arguments, including:

  • the employee's "fraudulent inducement" in obtaining the job disqualified him from receiving benefits;
  • because, pursuant to the federal immigration laws, Ramirez could not be lawfully hired, those laws preempted the State's workers' compensation laws; and
  • the employee's exclusion from the U.S. was the equivalent of being incarcerated, which would result in the suspension of benefits.
Judge Herlihy rejected each of the three arguments in turn and concluded that, despite his status as an illegal alien at the time of his employment, Ramirez was not disqualified from receiving workers' compensation benefits.

Nuts and Bolts
Regular readers may be mildly surprised to read that I actually side with the employee in this case. Not so much because of complicated legal reasons but more because of the basic facts. The employer hired Ramirez. The basic employment relationship involves the performance of services by the employee and the provision of certain compensation and benefits by the employer in return. One of those benefits is workers' compensation insurance.

Here, there is no dispute that Ramirez performed the services for which he was hired. Thus, the employer received the bargained-for benefit of the employment relationship. Ramirez, in return, was entitled to receive, in exchange, the benefits for which he had bargained, including wages for work performed and workers' compensation insurance.

There is no dispute that Ramirez was injured during the course and scope of his employment and there appears to be no dispute as to the extent of his injuries. Thus, it seems fair to me that he receive the benefits of the employment relationship, just as his employer did.

Feel free to disagree with me--I'm open to different opinions. Sean O'Sullivan reported the case in an excellent article in the News Journal today and notes that the case has been appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. So we'll keep you posted.

EEOC Wins Summary Judgment in Balt. Co. Pension Case

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn October 22, 2012In: Age (ADEA), Benefits, EEOC Suits & Settlements

Email This Post | Print this Post

EEOC was awarded summary judgment by a federal court in Maryland last week. The court found that Baltimore County's pension plan violates the ADEA in EEOC v. Baltimore County, Civil No. L-07-2500-BEL (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2012).

The Plan
All full-time employees under age 59 were required to participate in the Plan. Employees were required to contribute to the Plan at different rates based on the age at which they joined, so that the contribution would be sufficient to fund approximately one-half of his or her final retirement benefit, with the other half to be funded by the County. Older workers were required to contribute a higher percentage of their salary than younger workers because their contributions would have less time before retirement to accrue earnings. For example, a laborer who became a member of the Plan at age 25 was required to contribute 2.75%, whereas a laborer who joined at age 45 was required to contribute 4%. The Plan was changed in 2007 so that new employees were required to contribute at a flat rate, regardless of their age at the time they were hired.

The Litigation
In 2007, the EEOC filed suit on behalf of older County employees who had been hired under the original terms of the Plan. The District Court granted summary judgment to the County in 2008, finding that the Plan did not violate the ADEA because the disparate contribution rates were justified by a permissible financial consideration--the time value of money. The Court reasoned that the system was not based on age but on the number of years an employee had until reaching retirement age. The EEOC appealed and the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case.

The Decision
On remand, the District Court determined that there are no non-age-related financial considerations that justify the disparity in contribution rates. In other words, the Court concluded that the County charged different contribution rates to different employees based on age and, therefore, age is the "but-for" cause of the disparate treatment in violation of the ADEA.

See also, EEOC press release.

Same-Sex Civil Unions Recognized in Delaware

Posted by Adria B. MartinelliOn April 15, 2011In: Benefits, Delaware Specific, Discrimination, Legislative Update, Sexual Orientation

Email This Post | Print this Post

The Delaware House of Representatives voted yesterday in favor of Senate Bill 30, a bill that would create same-sex civil unions in Delaware, and recognize civil unions performed in other states. The bill also changes all sections of the Delaware Code where marriage is mentioned, by requiring that the word “marriage” be read to mean “marriage or civil union.”  Delaware Capitol Hill color

Senate Bill 30 was approved by the Delaware Senate on April 7, and Governor Markell has already declared that he will sign the bill into law “as soon as a suitable time and place are arranged.” The law will take effect on January 1, 2012.

The new law raises several questions for employers.  For example, the law cannot, and does not, alter federal non-recognition of civil unions. So how will the new law impact employers?

Right to Employment Benefits

As we have previously indicated, the most significant impact of Senate Bill 30 is likely to be on employment benefits. When the law takes effect, employers will be required to provide partners in a civil union with the same benefits that they provide to partners in a marriage. The Act would not cover those currently not protected by the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (DDEA): (a) employers with less than 4 employees; or (b) religious corporations with respect to discrimination based on sexual orientation

Equality of Benefits

Employers should also be aware that equality of benefits is a two-way street. Many employers previously offered employment benefits to unmarried same-sex partners, but not to unmarried heterosexual partners. Now that same-sex couples have access to civil unions that are substantively identical to marriage, employers may be open to claims of reverse discrimination if they continue to offer benefits to same-sex partners who have not entered into a civil union, but do not offer the same benefits to unmarried heterosexual partners.

Employers should also be careful to impose the same requirements for receipt of benefits upon same sex civil union partners as they do upon married partners. While it is perfectly acceptable to ask an employee to verify his or her marital status before extending benefits, the same requests should be made of both same-sex and heterosexual partners. If you do not require a copy of a marriage certificate to establish benefits, you should not require a copy of a civil union certificate.

Discrimination Protection

As we have previously reported, the DDEA already protects Delaware employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Keep in mind that homosexual individuals who may not have previously chosen to disclose that fact may, as a result of the new law, disclose that information so that their partner may enjoy benefits. Therefore, employers may possibly have knowledge of an employee’s protected class they might not otherwise have had – and should proceed cautiously with any adverse employment actions, particularly ones that may follow closely on the heels of such disclosure.

This post was authored by Adria B. Martinelli and Lauren Moak.  Adria will be speaking about the implications of Delaware's Civil Union and Equality Act of 2011 at our upcoming Annual Employment Law Seminar on May 11, 2011. 

Benefit Limitations Remain Unchanged from 2009 to 2011

Posted by E-LawOn November 1, 2010In: Benefits

Email This Post | Print this Post

If you were hoping to be able to sock away more money into your 401(K) Plan in 2011 than you did in 2011, fuggedaboutit! The maximum elective deferrals for 2011 remains the same as it was for 2009 and 2010 -- $16,500. The catch-up contribution limitation for those who are at least age 50 during 2011 is also unchanged at $5,500. The annual limit on compensation remains at $245,000, the defined contribution limit on contributions remains at $49,000 and the maximum benefit payable from a defined benefit remains at the lesser of 100% of compensation or $195,000.

Congress established the method by which the IRS determines the inflation adjusted annual benefit plan limitations. However, it seems like bad public policy to limit amounts that will be payable to employees upon retirement by the current cost of living increases, especially when the stock market is performing sluggishly.

Look for the complete listing of the adjustments to the benefit limitations when we publish our 2011 Benefits Update Card, a link to which will be posted on this blog.

*This post was written by Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway’s Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections.

IRS Delays Requirement to Report Cost of Group Health Coverage*

Posted by E-LawOn October 25, 2010In: Benefits

Email This Post | Print this Post

The provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “ACA”) that require employers to report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health-care coverage on 2011 Forms W-2 will be optional and not mandatory. According to the IRS, this interim relief is being provided to allow employers to make necessary changes to their payroll systems. The IRS has also announced that it anticipates issuing guidance on this reporting requirement prior to the end of 2010. The ACA requires the “aggregate cost” is to be determined under rules similar to the rules for determining the “applicable premium” under COBRA. The aggregate cost will include the portions of the cost paid by both the employer and the employee.

Notice 2010-69

*This post was written by Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway’s Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections.  His primary area of practice is employee benefits, which involves both the benefit provisions of provisions of the Internal Revenue Service and ERISA.  He represents businesses and professionals in establishing, monitoring, and administering employee-benefit plans, new comparability retirement plans, non-qualified deferred-compensation plans, health, disability and life benefits, COBRA, HIPAA, ADA and ADEA.

Employers Must Play or Pay Under Health-Care Reform

Posted by E-LawOn July 8, 2010In: Benefits, Legislative Update

Email This Post | Print this Post

Health care reform is now law and many of the so called “insurance market reforms” go into effect for most employers on January 1, 2011. However, the portion of the law that will require certain large employers to offer and contribute to employees’ health insurance or pay a penalty are deferred until 2014.Health care symbol

Under the law, effective January 1, 2014, each Applicable Large Employer must offer minimum essential coverage to its full-time employees (and their dependents) or it will be required to pay a penalty for each month that any of its full-time employees purchases health insurance through a state health insurance exchange (“Exchange”) and receives a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (generally granted to individuals based on income levels).

An Applicable Large Employer is one that employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year. A full-time employee is one who for any month works an average of at least 30 hours or more each week is counted as one employee and those employees who work less than 30 hours per week are counted as proportionate employees based on 30 hours per week. An Applicable Large Employer will be subject to the penalty only if the employer has any full-time employees who are certified as having purchased health insurance through an Exchange and received a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction.

Continue reading "Employers Must Play or Pay Under Health-Care Reform" »

Health FSA Uniform Coverage Rule Precludes Recoupment

Posted by E-LawOn April 1, 2010In: Benefits

Email This Post | Print this Post

In 1989, when the Internal Revenue Service wrote the first proposed regulations for health flexible spending accounts (“FSAs”), it came up with the requirement that health FSAs must exhibit the “risk-shifting and risk-distribution characteristics of insurance”. This concept has been translated into of the “uniform coverage” rule.

The uniform-coverage rule requires that the maximum amount of an employee’s elective contributions to a health FSA must be available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse the employee’s qualified medical expenses. This means that if an employee elects to contribute to the health FSA $100 per month for the year, the employee must be reimbursed for qualified medical expenses up to the full $1,200 from the first day of the year, regardless of the amount actually contributed to the plan at the time that reimbursement is sought.

Under the uniform-coverage rule, an employee can potentially terminate employment having been reimbursed under the health FSA for more than she contributed up to the time of her termination. This rule has caused most employers to limit the amounts that employees can contribute to a health FSA, even though, prior to the effective date of provisions in the recent healthcare reform legislation ($2,500 annual cap after 2012), there is no statutory limit on contributions to health FSAs.

On March 26, 2010, the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice No. 201012060 (pdf), in which the Chief Counsel concluded that, if an employee's reimbursements from a health FSA exceed her contributions to the health FSA at the time of the termination of her employment, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee. Neither the previous proposed regulations nor the current proposed regulations regarding health FSAs (Prop. Treas. Reg. § 1.125-5(d)(1) (pdf)) stated explicitly that such recoupment is not permitted. This has always been known by practitioners to be the rule, much to the chagrin of our clients. Any attempt at recoupment of this sort will remove the risk shifting/risk distribution and result in the loss of favorable tax status for the benefits paid under the health FSA.

 

 

*This post was written by Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway’s Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections.  His primary area of practice is employee benefits, which involves both the benefit provisions of provisions of the Internal Revenue Service and ERISA.  He represents business and professionals in establishing, monitoring, and administering employee-benefit plans, new comparability retirement plans, non-qualified deferred-compensation plans, health, disability and life benefits, COBRA, HIPAA, ADA and ADEA.

FLSA Now Requires Breastfeeding Breaks and a Place to Take Them

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 30, 2010In: Benefits, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Legislative Update

Email This Post | Print this Post

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed last week by President Obama will affect employers in numerous ways, many of which have not yet been explored in detail, owing to the newness of the law.  One provision of the law that is certain to have a very real impact on employers across the country but that we have heard virtually nothing about is Section 4207.  Section 4207, titled, Reasonable Break Time for Nursing Mothers amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  Because it is born to the FLSA, its provisions apply to almost all employers—every employer engaged in interstate commerce of at least $500,000 per year, hospitals, businesses providing medical or nursing care for residents, schools and preschools, and government agencies. 

So, what does the new law require?  Quite a bit. The Act adds the following to Section 7 of the FLSA as a new subsection (r):

An employer shall provide:

(A) a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth; and
(B) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.

There are some exceptions to these requirements.

First, employers are not required to pay employees who take a breastfeeding break—unless, of course, there is a state law that says otherwise.  Second, an employer with less than 50 employees is exempt from the requirements if the requirements would “impose an undue hardship” by causing it “significant difficulty or expense” as compared to the employer’s size, resources, and the structure of its business. 

Is Your Qualified Plan (Adequately) Bonded?*

Posted by E-LawOn March 5, 2010In: Benefits

Email This Post | Print this Post

The IRS recently announced the results of two special audit programs it conducted. The first program involved audits of approximately 50 Form 5500 filings for defined contribution plans with asset values greater than $100,000 but less than $250,000. The second program audited 50 401(k) plans covering three to eight participants. Surprisingly (maybe not, given our experience), the most common error revealed by both projects was the failure to have the plan adequately bonded as required by ERISA section 412.

The amount of bond required by ERISA is 10% of the assets in the plan but not less than $1,000 and but not more than $500,000 ($1,000,000 for plans that hold employer securities). The bond must cover all persons, including fiduciaries, who handle funds or other property of an employee benefit plan. The purpose of the bond is to protect the employee benefit plan from risk of loss due to fraud or dishonesty on the part of persons who handle plan funds. The United States Department of Labor’s Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2008-04 discusses the bonding requirements in an FAQ format

Note that an ERISA fidelity bond, which is required, is not the same as fiduciary liability insurance, which is not required. Fiduciary liability insurance covers the fiduciaries of the employee benefit plan in the event of a breach their fiduciary duties, which may involve imprudence but may not rise to the level of fraud or dishonesty. If there is no bond available when a defalcation occurs, those responsible for obtaining the bond could be liable to the plan for its losses. An ERISA bond can usually be obtained through your property and casualty insurance broker.

 

*This post was written by guest blogger, Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway’s Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections.  His primary area of practice is employee benefits, which involves both the benefit provisions of provisions of the Internal Revenue Service and ERISA.  He represents business and professionals in establishing, monitoring, and administering employee-benefit plans, new comparability retirement plans, non-qualified deferred-compensation plans, health, disability and life benefits, COBRA, HIPAA, ADA and ADEA.

COBRA Subsidy Is Extended*

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn December 22, 2009In: Benefits

Email This Post | Print this Post

The eligibility for the COBRA premium subsidy was about to expire for those individuals who are involuntarily terminated and become eligible for COBRA benefits after December 31, 2009.  However, on December 21, 2009, the President signed legislation that extends the eligibility for the subsidy to those individuals who are involuntarily terminated and become eligible for COBRA coverage before February 28, 2010. 

The legislation also extends from 9 months to 15 months the length of the subsidy period and the extension applies to those who became eligible for the subsidy after February, 2009, even if their initial nine months has already expired.  The extension is retroactive for those individuals who lost COBRA coverage because they stopped paying the premiums due to the expiration of their subsidy.  Thus, individuals who became eligible for the subsidy in March were subsidy eligible through November 30, 2009.  If such an individual did not pay his or her December, 2009 COBRA premium because the subsidy expired, the individual can re-enroll in COBRA and receive the subsidy for December, 2009 (without any gaps in coverage) and another 5 months until May, 2010.


The COBRA subsidy extension was attached to H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 which passed by an overwhelming vote in the House of 395 to 35.  According to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, “This bill ensures that workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will not lose the unemployment and health benefits they rely upon to provide for their families.  The immediate benefits and assistance provided in this bill help provide some measure of economic security for millions of our fellow Americans struggling during this holiday season, helping ease their pain as they search for their next job opportunity.”

More to come as details of the legislation emerge.

See also, ARRA COBRA Subsidy Information

*Written by guest author Timothy J. Snyder, Esq.  Tim is the Chair of Young Conaway’s Tax, Trusts and Estates, and Employee Benefits Sections.  His primary area of practice is employee benefits, which involves both the benefit provisions of provisions of the Internal Revenue Service and ERISA.  He represents business and professionals in establishing, monitoring, and administering employee-benefit plans, new comparability retirement plans, non-qualified deferred-compensation plans, health, disability and life benefits, COBRA, HIPAA, ADA and ADEA.

Top 10 Employment Law Developments of 2009

Posted by William W. BowserOn December 17, 2009In: Benefits, Disabilities (ADA), E-Verify, Genetic Information (GINA), Newsworthy, Purely Legal, Union and Labor Issues

Email This Post | Print this Post

As 2009 winds down, it’s a good time to reflect on the most important employment law developments in what has been a very busy year. Here are my top 10:

Continue reading "Top 10 Employment Law Developments of 2009" »

New FMLA Regulations Restrict Substitution of Paid Leave for FMLA

Posted by William W. BowserOn July 17, 2009In: Benefits, Family Medical Leave, Leaves of Absence

Email This Post | Print this Post

The substitution of paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave occurs often.  A employee eligible for FMLA leave will substitute accrued vacation, sick, medical, or other similar types of paid leave so that he avoids a loss of pay during the leave.  In most circumstances, employers also benefit because, when substitution occurs, the time counts against both the employee’s FMLA and paid time off 3d man sick with red crossentitlements.

Under the prior FMLA regulations, substitution of paid leave could be abused.  For example,  vacation leave was required to be substituted for any FMLA leave.  Common restrictions imposed on the use of vacation such as advanced notice or requiring it to be used in minimum blocks of time could not be imposed to prevent substitution.  This ready availability of paid leave surely was very tempting to some employees that could not otherwise use such time.

The new FMLA regulations, however, give employers the ability to reduce abuse.  Under the new 29 C.F.R. § 207, employers can require employees to meet all of the normal requirements of paid leave policies before permitting substitution.  For example, if a policy requires that vacation be taken in full day increments, an employer can deny substitution for an employee’s one-half day FMLA leave.  Similarly, if vacation time cannot be taken during a particular month, substitution could be denied during that time period.

The consequences of the new rule are obvious.  Employees might now be required to take unpaid FMLA leave rather than substitute paid leave.  As a result, the temptation to use the FMLA to obtain paid leave that they otherwise would not be entitled is eliminated.

COBRA Subsidy Update

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 6, 2009In: Benefits

Email This Post | Print this Post

Department of Labor (DOL) has updated its COBRA Subsidy website.  Added to the resources already available are the IRS Notice 2009-27 and an expanded FAQ for employers with new Q&As on the model notices. image

In case you missed it, here's a recap on of the major COBRA changes:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides for premium reductions and additional election opportunities for health benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Eligible individuals pay only 35 percent of their COBRA premiums and the remaining 65 percent is reimbursed to the coverage provider through a tax credit. The premium reduction applies to periods of health coverage beginning on or after February 17, 2009, and lasts for up to nine months for those eligible for COBRA during the period beginning September 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2009, due to an involuntary termination of employment that occurred during that period. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2009, enacted as part of ARRA, also made changes with regard to COBRA continuation coverage.

You may also want to review our previous posts on this issue, beginning with Tim Snyder's Guidance for Employers on the New COBRA Subsidy. Delaware employers, of course, can learn first-hand about the changes at our Annual Employment Law Seminar, on April 29, 2009.