Although, I still believe the language doesn't compel the Court's conclusion, a policy defense is possible. A common sense understanding of the situation in McGann suggests that the company took away McGann s benefits because he filed claims for AIDS care and discussed his condition with company officials in March. The changes seem designed to deny him health insurance benefits for his condition. Nevertheless, the court relies on two important distinctions to find for the defendant employer. Second, there is no interference with his benefits because he has no vested right to receive health insurance on the same terms in the future.
Health insurance is offered on a claims-made basis with no guarantee of continued coverage.
There is, however, one important source of law that might provide a remedy for the McGanns of the future. At the beginning of class tomorrow, I will explain how the Americans with Disabilities Act might apply to this situation. Copyright 2000 by J.H. Verkerke.