In a recent decision, the Federal District Court for Idaho found that a grocery store employee who  took a stale cake and shared it with her coworkers was properly denied COBRA for her “gross misconduct.”  (The decision does not say, but we assume “gross” does not refer to the quality of the stale cake.)

The employee alleged that she had been terminated because she was a woman, but the court disagreed finding no substantial evidence that the alleged basis for her termination was a pretext for gender discrimination.

Instead, the court said that she was terminated for “theft and dishonesty” in violation of company policy.  With regard to the claim that her termination was not for gross misconduct, the Court said:

Stealing from and/or lying to one’s employer, regardless of the value of the item, constitutes a willful and intentional disregard for the interests of one’s employer and is properly considered “gross misconduct” under COBRA….Ms. Mayes has made allegations that she should not have been fired for theft because she had permission to take cakes from the bakery and allegations regarding WinCo’s investigation….Whether or not Ms. Mayes had permission to use the cakes as she did or the taking of cakes was a commonly accepted practice is disputed. Regardless, WinCo’s written policy, which Ms. Mayes agreed to, is clear and provides that theft and/or dishonesty are considered gross misconduct.

There are relatively few cases involving gross misconduct, so each one is a helpful data point.  Even so, whether the

In a recent CMS Bulletin, the Department of Health & Human Services announced a one-time special enrollment period for individuals who are currently eligible for, or enrolled in, COBRA continuation coverage to enroll in qualified health plans in the Marketplace.  This special enrollment period applies to the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) and ends July 1, 2014.

A person eligible for, or enrolled in, COBRA coverage is generally permitted to enroll in the Marketplace only (i) when the person is initially eligible for COBRA or has exhausted his or her COBRA coverage rights, (ii) during annual open enrollment, or (iii) during some other special enrollment period.  This one-time special enrollment period allows eligible individuals in states that utilize the FFM to terminate their COBRA coverage and enroll in qualified health plans offered through the FFM without regard to the standard enrollment period restrictions.  In the absence of another special enrollment period, the next general enrollment opportunity would be the annual open enrollment period commencing November 15, 2014.

Such a switch may allow COBRA participants to realize savings by obtaining affordable (possibly subsidized) medical insurance coverage through a public exchange.  Employers, who also stand to benefit by moving COBRA participants to alternative coverage, should consider promptly notifying COBRA participants of this limited special enrollment opportunity.

Note:  This special enrollment period does not apply to a State-Based Marketplaces unless it

This is cross-posted from our recent client alert.

With 2014 just around the corner, numerous mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended (“PPACA”) are about to become effective.  Below is a checklist of upcoming PPACA mandates that employers must implement in 2014, as well as a list of existing enrollment and annual notice requirements that group health plan sponsors should consider during open enrollment.

Additionally, with the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor overturning part of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), group health plan sponsors should take into account the impact of this decision on their plans.  As such, a brief summary of relevant DOMA considerations are provided below.

For a refresher on the PPACA mandates which became effective this year, please see our 2013 group health plan checklist here.

I. Requirements That Apply to All Group Health Plans (Whether Grandfathered or Not)

Beginning with the dates specified below, a group health plan subject to PPACA must comply with the following requirements, regardless of its status as a “grandfathered health plan”:

• Annual limits will no longer be permitted on essential health benefits.

Currently, annual limits on “essential health benefits” cannot exceed $2 million.  Effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, group health plans may not establish annual dollar limits on such benefits for any participant or beneficiary.  However, this prohibition does not prevent a group health plan from excluding all

In Technical Release 2013-04, the Employee Benefit Security Administration mirrored the guidance provided by the Internal Revenue Service in Revenue Ruling 2013-17, providing clear guidance defining “spouse” and “marriage” for all purposes under ERISA. As now defined, these terms include same-sex spouses, so long as their marriage is recognized by the state in which the marriage occurred (i.e. adopting a “state of celebration” rule). In addition, the DOL confirmed that “spouse” and “marriage” do not include registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships that may be recognized under state law but are not denominated as marriages.

Given the recent IRS guidance, this guidance by the DOL is not surprising and still doesn’t give employers enough information to update plan documents. However, there are steps employers can begin now regarding the administration of same-sex spousal benefits under ERISA plans:

Company Position – Determine company’s position on offering spousal benefits to same-sex spouses.

• Is recognition of same-sex spouse limited to minimal legal compliance?
• Does the company want to recognize domestic partnerships and civil unions?
• Will proof of marriage be required for everyone?

Proof of Marriage

• Consider a campaign to update records (e.g. beneficiary designations) and gather proof of marriage. Include information on the law change and its effects on benefit plans.

Retirement Plans – Qualified retirement plans are required to provide certain spousal protections (e.g. spousal death benefits).

• Treat same-sex spouses as spouses. Regardless of plan language, a same-sex spouse must receive
  

Today, the DOL released Technical Release 2013-04, providing that the Secretary of Labor will interpret the terms “spouse” and “marriage”, for purposes of ERISA and related regulations and opinions, to include individuals who are lawfully married under any state law (regardless of state of domicile).  The release states this approach is the most consistent with the Windsor decision and notes that a state of celebration approach provides a uniform rule that can be applied with certainty by employers, plan administrators, participants, and beneficiaries.    In addition, the DOL intends to issue future guidance addressing specific provisions of ERISA.

This approach is the same approach used by the IRS for purposes of federal tax law.  Please see our previous post for further details regarding the IRS approach.

We intend to provide additional analysis in future posts.

In Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the Internal Revenue Service provided clear guidance to define “spouse” for all purposes under the Internal Revenue Code. A “spouse” includes a same-sex spouse whose marriage is recognized by the state in which the marriage occurred. Use of this “state of celebration” rule will greatly simplify employee benefit plan administration for employers. However, the IRS indicated in this guidance that it will provide more direction on the impact of this definition on employee benefit plans.

How Did the IRS Define the State of Celebration Rule?

These are the bottom line holdings from the IRS guidance, which apply for all purposes under the Internal Revenue Code:

• The terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” include an individual married to a person of the same sex if the individuals are lawfully married under state law, and the term “marriage” includes a marriage between individuals of the same sex.
• A marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a state whose laws authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex will be recognized for Federal tax law purposes even if the married couple is domiciled in a state that does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. For example, same-sex marriage is not recognized in Missouri. However, a same-sex couple that marries in Iowa but lives in Missouri will be considered married for Federal tax purposes because the marriage is valid in Iowa where the
  

Today the IRS release Revenue Ruling 2013-17 generally providing that same-sex marriages would be recognized for Federal tax purposes if they were recognized under the laws of the state in which the marriage occurred.  This has generally been referred to as the “place of celebration” rule.

In addition, the IRS released FAQs on both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships and civil unions.  These FAQs provide additional guidance on some relevant issues for plan sponsors, including qualified retirement plans, the tax impacts of health coverage for same-sex spouses, and cafeteria plans.

We’ll provide additional analysis in future posts, so stay tuned!