Health insurance coverage for part -timer

Forrister7

We are a small business with 20 employees, 8 of whom participate in the company sponsored health insurance. The company pays 80% of the premiums, employees pay 20%. Bossman has decided we're paying too much in premiums, and has decided to cut family coverage for anyone working less than 36 hours a week. This effects one employee. She has been told by Bossman that her options are to switch to a single plan (as opposed to a family plan, in which case of course her husband and children won't have any health insurance coverage), or pay the difference between the single and family plan herself, which would be about $500 per month. Something about this smells rotten to me - does anyone know the legal implications of this decision? Can this employee argue that she is being discriminated against? Is the company obliged to pay the same for all employees?

Gillian

Unfortunately, you are seeing the effects of a broken health care system. Many employers of your size are discontinuing health insurance altogether. There is nothing illegal about the decision unless the employee can make a case that there is adverse impact against a protected group - race, sex, age, etc., but even if that were the case the motive seems to be to save money.

mrbill

Something tells me that this is a bad decision, and is telescoped to negatively affect 1 person. As I understand; the break between full time / part time // benefits / no benefits is 30 hours per week, not 36 hours. This is a "generally accepted Insurance policy", but whether or not it has a legal basis is unknown. As a fall back, I would review this with your insurance carrier, and if they agree with the 36 hour threshhold, that you announce the policy for some time in the near future, perhaps 6 months out.

NaeNae55

Something else to consider: this employee is going to feel picked on, even if it is not the case. The other employees will look at her and wonder if what happened to her is going to happen to them (being singled out for something). I wonder if this negative response is really worth saving $500 a month. Maybe you should put your heads together and come up with another plan that will affect more employees, with less impact on any one of them. (What if the employer only pays 75% or 60%?) This will help keep the "team" feeling and avoid having this employee come up with a possible reason for discrimination. Even if you have a strong case, it is still costly to get sued.

Good luck!

Forrister7

Thanks to all for their thoughts/suggestions. If the decision was mine to make (or even if I had input into the decision-making process) the outcome would be far more equitable. Bossman makes up his mind, and that's that. However, with your suggestions in hand, I can arm the employee whose health insurance is being cut, and maybe she can influence him to act more reasonably.