Stoel Rives Presents Webinar On Employer Group Health Plans After U.S. Supreme Court Decision Upholding "Obamacare"
As everyone who was not on Mars this summer knows, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a surprising and historic decision upholding key provisions of President Obama's Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). To help employers navigate the requirements of the law now that it has the stamp of approval of the Supreme Court, and to provide other updates on developments in federal health care reform, members of the Stoel Rives employee benefit and employment groups have been touring the region with a 90-minute presentation entitled "Health Care Reform After the Supreme Court’s Decision: Group Health Plan Update 2012." The seminars were presented by Stoel Rives attorneys Howard Bye-Torre, Melanie Curtice, Bethany Bacci, Steve Woodland, Matthew Durham, Carolyn Walker, James Dale, Renae Saade, and Tony DeCristoforo in Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Boise, and Anchorage during September and October.
Shameless Plug Alert! Webinar Presentation on October 25, 2012
If you missed the show when it came to your town or are just interested in learning about this complex and evolving area of employee benefits law, there is one more opportunity to attend the seminar via a webinar which will be conducted on Thursday, October 25 at noon, Pacific Time. To RSVP for the webinar and get instructions for attending, please click here.
The seminars reviewed the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and also some of the ACA's impacts which have already been felt by group health plans and employers, such as the requirement to cover children through age 26. Regulatory developments planned for 2013 are also discussed, including:
- the requirement to report the cost of health care coverage on W-2s;
- the new disclosure document required by the ACA, the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBCs);
- required 100% coverage for FDA-approved contraceptive methods for women; and
- the reduction to $2,500 of the maximum amount that an employee can contribute to a health care flexible spending account.
The seminars also discussed the new two federal fees on group health plans for 2013-2018, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee and the transitional reinsurance program fee. The seminars concluded with a discussion of the ACA requirements for 2014, including
- the mandate for individuals to have health insurance coverage;
- employer pay-or-play penalties, including new IRS guidance on the definition of “full-time” employees for purposes of the penalties;
- recent IRS guidance on the 90-day maximum waiting period for health plans.
We look forward to seeing you online for the webinar on October 25.
On March 12, several senators introduced Senate Bill 2189, known as the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which would overturn a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case, Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc, that had made it more difficult for older workers to prove claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Under the new bill, it would be much easier for employees to prove age discrimination in many cases.
In the Gross case, the Supreme Court held, by a 5-4 margin, that the “mixed motive” analysis of discrimination claims was not available under the ADEA, and that plaintiffs asserting age discrimination must prove that age was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which codified the mixed motive analysis in cases of race, sex, and other protected statuses, only applied to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not the ADEA, which is a separate statutory scheme. Under Gross, in ADEA cases the plaintiff was required to prove that age was the “but for” cause of the employment action, not simply a motivating factor.
This bill is sponsored by Senators from both parties (Sen. Harkin [D-IA], Sen. Grassley [R-IA], and Sen. Leahy [D-VA]), but exactly how much support it has remains to be seen. Similar bills were introduced in both the House and Senate in 2009, but neither were voted on. It remains to be seen whether this bill will gain traction or suffer a similar fate.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that California’s daily overtime requirements apply to work performed in California by non-residents. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., three employees of Oracle who were not residents of California worked as “instructors” and trained Oracle’s customers in the use of the company’s products. Required by Oracle to travel, the plaintiffs worked primarily in their home states but also in California and several other states. California is one of the few states that requires payment of daily overtime for hours worked in excess of eight in a day. At issue in the case was whether these non-residents of California were entitled to daily overtime for days they worked in California.
In a unanimous decision, California Supreme Court held that the California Labor Code does apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state employees, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours in a day. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted California’s strong interest in applying its overtime law to all non-exempt workers, and all work performed, within the state’s borders. The Court stated that to permit non-residents to work in California without the protection of the state’s overtime law would completely sacrifice, as to those employees, California’s important public policy goals of protecting health and safety and preventing the evils associated with overwork. Additionally, not applying California law would encourage employers to substitute lower paid temporary employees from other states for California employees, thus threatening California’s legitimate interest in expanding the job market.
While not great news for employers, this decision provides guidance to multi-state employers about how to pay non-exempt employees who work occasionally in California. However, the Court left some important questions unanswered. First, the decision does not directly apply to employers that are based outside of California. The Court specifically limited its holding to out-of-state employees working for California-based employers. The question remains whether an employer based outside of California must comply with California’s overtime rules for those days its non-California employees work in California. Even though the ruling does not specifically address this scenario, the reasoning the Court employed in reaching its decision leaves the door open for an argument that its holding applies to employers based outside of California. Also, the Court was not asked to address, and did not address, whether other provisions of California’s wage law -- such as the contents of pay stubs, meal period requirements, the compensability of travel time, the accrual and forfeiture of vacation time, and the timing of payment to employees who quit or are discharged -- apply to work performed in California by non-resident employees.
California-based employers with non-exempt employees in other states who occasionally work in California should immediately confirm that all such employees are paid overtime in conformity with California law when working in California.