Can the ACA Employer Health-Insurance Mandate Be Avoided by Reducing Employees’ Hours? McGuireWoods Healthcare Reform Guide: Installment No. 56

by McGuireWoods LLP
Contact

This is the 56th in a series of WorkCite articles concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its companion statute, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (referred to collectively as the ACA). This article discusses the decision of the federal district court in Marin v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 3608 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18086 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2016).

In Marin, the court denied a defendant employer’s request to dismiss a lawsuit alleging acts of discrimination in violation of Section 510 of ERISA. Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant suing on behalf of herself and a purported class, alleged that defendant intentionally interfered with her ability, and that of other employees, to obtain healthcare coverage under defendant’s group health plan by reducing their scheduled work hours.

Under the ACA’s “play-or-pay” employer mandate, an “applicable large employer” must offer health insurance coverage to its “full-time” employees − those employed an average of at least 30 hours per week − or else be subject to penalties. Some employers have considered reducing employees’ hours to below the 30-hour threshold in order to avoid having to offer health insurance to them.

ERISA Section 510 makes it unlawful for any person, among other things, to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary of an employee benefit plan “for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” Marin appears to be the first reported case questioning whether an employer can be liable under Section 510 if it reduces employees’ hours in order to avoid the ACA mandate.

The Complaint

In May 2015, Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin filed a purported class-action lawsuit against her former employer, Dave & Buster’s, Inc. (Dave & Buster’s), alleging that it violated Section 510 by reducing her hours so that it could reduce the number of its full-time employees.

In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that she was hired as a full-time employee in August 2006 and worked approximately 30 to 45 hours a week for seven years. During that time, she was eligible for and received health insurance coverage under Dave & Buster’s group health plan. She also alleged that in 2013, Dave & Buster’s designed and implemented a nationwide effort to “right-size,” or rebalance, the number of full-time to part-time workers that it employed. Specifically, she alleged that Dave & Buster’s:

  • held employee meetings to communicate their intention to cut the number of full-time employees “to avoid increasing health care costs”;
  • told a reporter that they were “in the process of adapting to upcoming changes associated with health care reform”;
  • noted in public filings that “[p]roviding health insurance benefits to employees that are more extensive than the health insurance benefits we currently provide … to a potentially larger proportion of our employees … will increase our expenses”; and
  • stated in a letter to plaintiff’s attorney that reducing her hours was part of a nationwide program to “right-size” the number of company full-time and part-time employees.

Plaintiff alleged that her hours were reduced to 10 to 25 hours a week from August 2013 to February 2014 and that in March of 2014, Dave and Buster’s notified her that she was no longer eligible to participate in its group health plan because she was no longer a full-time employee averaging 30 hours or more per week.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of plaintiff and the class, restitution for lost wages and benefits, with interest, from the date of the reduction of their hours and benefits.

The Motion to Dismiss

In February, the district court denied Dave & Buster’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Section 510. In the motion, Dave & Buster’s argued that plaintiff was not entitled to future benefits under the health plan and, therefore, could not sustain a claim under Section 510 because she was alleging only loss of an opportunity to accrue future or additional benefits.

In its decision, the court explained that the critical element in a Section 510 claim is the intent of the employer. In other words, did the employer intend to interfere with benefits? The court noted that (i) plaintiff alleged that Dave and Buster’s alleged discrimination affected her current benefits, in addition to interfering with her ability to attain future benefit rights; and (ii) her claim arose from the employer's unlawful motivation, acting to interfere with either the exercise or the accrual of benefits to which plaintiff “may become entitled.” The court was required, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, to accept that the factual allegations in the complaint would be proved. It therefore concluded that the complaint stated a plausible and legally sufficient claim for relief that Dave & Buster’s interfered with plaintiff’s current healthcare coverage, in addition to interfering with her ability to attain future benefits.

The court noted that Dave & Buster’s’ reliance on prior summary judgment opinions issued by the court and the Second Circuit was premature at this stage of the case. As a result, the case will proceed into discovery. The court has yet to consider whether the class that plaintiff purports to represent is entitled to be certified.

Other Cases in the Second Circuit

The courts in several cases in the Second Circuit have ruled in favor of employers in connection with Section 510 claims.

  • In Dister v. Cont’l Grp, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1988), the court of appeals affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that no reasonable jury could find that the employer intentionally fired a complaining employee to interfere with his ability to obtain certain retirement plan benefits because there was insufficient evidence presented that the employer had a discriminatory motive for terminating him.
  • In Kelly v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 717 F. Supp. 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), the district court granted summary judgment for an employer because the complaining employee’s claim that he was prevented from enjoying a future benefit, not created at the time of his discharge, was not a cognizable claim under Section 510.
  • In Gioia v. Forbes Media LLC, 501 Fed.Appx. 52 (2d Cir. 2012), the court of appeals affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer who was accused of violating Section 510 because it laid off employees who, as a result, had their group health insurance benefits terminated. The Second Circuit affirmed the ruling because plaintiffs, executors of the estate of a deceased former employee, did not present evidence that the employer who made the decision to lay off the employees had knowledge of the decedent’s health insurance claims or claim history.
  • Plaintiffs argued that the employer hired new employees around the same time as the layoff, which would undercut the employer’s claim that the layoff was part of an effort by it to reduce costs. However, on review of the record, the Second Circuit found that those new employees filled different, pre-existing positions, and that the decedent was only one of a group of employees in the same group who were laid off during that time.
  • As to an email presented as evidence in which the supervisor of the decedent discussed allocation of responsibilities after the layoff to a reduced staff, the Second Circuit found that it failed to establish a genuine issue of fact because there was no suggestion in the email that there was an intent on the supervisors’ part to terminate the complaining employee to cut healthcare costs.

Employer Takeaways

Though the Marin case calls into question whether an employer can lawfully manage the hours of its workforce in light of the increased costs of providing healthcare coverage under the ACA, it is important to note that the district court’s refusal to dismiss the case does not provide an answer. Rather, with this ruling, the issue is one step closer to being addressed by the court.

As Marin unfolds, employers should be aware that similar litigation may surface. In the meantime, employers should carefully review, before distribution, all communications to employees regarding decisions to modify work schedules. This case demonstrates how such communications may bolster an employee’s claims of discriminatory intent. In contrast, a careful coordination of disclosures accompanied by a well-crafted communications strategy can help to minimize the risk of future litigation.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McGuireWoods LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McGuireWoods LLP
Contact
more
less

McGuireWoods LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.