Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-guide-to-employee-benefits-administrat-13334/
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 15:04:41
Document Index: 53956787

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2601', 'art 825', '§ 2000', 'art 1604', '§ 12101', '§ 4301', 'arts 1002', '§ 4316', '§ 12945', '§ 31', '§ 32', '§ 12', '§ 14', '§ 1144', '§ 2651', '§ 2614', '§ 825', '§ 1', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 105', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 825', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4318', '§ 414', '§ 4318', '§ 414', '§ 72', '§ 1', '§ 414', '§ 1', '§ 4975', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 825', '§ 409', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§1']

A Guide to Employee Benefits Administration and Leaves of Absence | Littler - JDSupra
Joni L. Andrioff, Michelle Barrett, Michael G. Congiu, Steven J. Friedman, Susan Katz Hoffman, Diane L. Kimberlin, Adam J. Peters, Michelle P. Thomas, George R. Wood | Littler
[authors: Joni Andrioff, Michelle Barrett, Michael Congiu, Steven Friedman, Susan Hoffman, Diane Kimberlin, Adam Peters, Michelle Thomas and George Wood]
Requires employer to continue medical benefits for the FMLA leave period as if the employee was still working.
Requires an employer to analyze whether a definite leave of absence is a reasonable accommodation for an ADA-protected disability, and will assist a qualified individual to return to work to perform the essential functions of her job.
Requires employer to provide seniority-based and non-seniority-based benefits to person on military leave.
Variable — May extend FMLA rights and other leave obligations or provisions.
1 Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; 29 C.F.R. Part 825.
2 Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq.; 29 C.F.R. Part 1604. The PDA applies to employers with as few as 15 employees and generally requires employers to treat leave related to medical conditions associated with pregnancy or childbirth the same as other short-term disability leaves.
3 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
4 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301 – 4335; 20 C.F.R. Parts 1002 et seq.
5 A seniority-based benefit depends on whether: (a) the right or benefit is a reward for length of service rather than short-term compensation for work performed; (b) whether it is reasonably certain the employee would have received the right or benefit if continuously employed during the period of service; and (c) whether it's the employer's custom or practice (such as provisions of an employment contract or handbook policies, unless the employer's actual custom and practice is different) to provide or withhold the right or benefit as a reward for length of service.
6 38 U.S.C. § 4316.
7 See, e.g., California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12945.2.
8 Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-57r - 31-57w.
9 D.C. Code §§ 32-131.01 et seq.
10 San Francisco, Cal., Admin. Code §§ 12W.1 et seq.
11 Seattle, Wash., Muni. Code §§ 14.16.010 et seq.
12 29 U.S.C. § 1144(d).
13 29 U.S.C. § 2651(b) (emphasis added).
14 29 U.S.C. § 2614(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.100(b), 825.209, 825.211, 825.215.
15 Treas. Reg. § 1.125-3.
16 Treas. Reg. § 54.4980B-10.
17 Treas. Reg. § 54.4980B-10.
18 See 26 U.S.C. § 105(h)(2), I.R.S. Notice 2010-63 (Oct. 12, 2010).
19 Treas. Reg. § 1.125-3.
20 Treas. Reg. § 1.125-3.
21 See 29 C.F.R. § 825.213(a).
22 Treas. Reg. §1.21-1(c)(ii).
23 CLARCOUR, INC. v. Madison Nat'l Life Ins. Co., Inc., No. 11-6177 (6th Cir. July 31, 2012) (unpublished).
24 "I want to address up front an issue that I know there have been questions on and some confusion about. And that is the question of whether employers can have uniformly applied leave policies and whether such policies on their face violate the ADA. The Commission has never taken such a position." EEOC Meeting, EEOC to Examine Use of Leave As Reasonable Accommodation (June 8, 2011) (oral testimony of EEOC Assistant Legal Counsel Christopher Kuczyinski; written testimony at pp. 1-2) (emphasis added), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/6-8-11/index.cfm. See also EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Q&A 17 (Oct. 2002).
25 See Press Release, EEOC (Feb. 5, 2010), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-5-10a.cfm.
26 Additionally, the EEOC filed suit against a large restaurant chain in the District of Maryland, Case No. 1:06-cv-02527-WDQ, in 2006, claiming that the chain had "a policy and practice of limiting employee medical leaves – regardless of whether those employees are disabled within the meaning of the ADA and require additional medical leave, in any combination of paid or unpaid, as a form of reasonable accommodation." The restaurant chain's policy generally capped continuous absences at six months. The case was settled for $ 1.3 million in June 2011. Further, the EEOC filed suit against a large grocery store chain in the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:09-cv-05637, claiming that the grocer employed an inflexible policy to terminate employees at the end of a one-year leave period without complying with its obligations to engage in an ADA interactive process, and obtaining a settlement of $ 3.2 million. Lastly, the EEOC is engaged in litigation against United Parcel Service, also in the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:09-cv-05291, claiming that the company has discriminated against a class of individuals with disabilities "by maintaining an inflexible 12-month leave policy which did not provide for reasonable accommodation and which instead provided for termination of employment." Though the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss, the EEOC is attempting to have the district court's order certified for appeal. At present, the parties' respective briefing to date on the topic of the appealability of the order is pending before the court.
27 Calhoun v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 10-cv-15176 (E.D. Mich. 2012), provides a cautionary tale in favor of coordinating LTD with a disability pension. The employee, hired in 1965, commenced LTD benefits in 1993 but subsequently failed to provide required medical documentation of his disability. Accordingly, the employer recorded the employee as having voluntarily quit in 1994. His LTD benefits, however, continued erroneously until 2007, when the insurance company cut him off. The employee next applied for a disability pension benefit from the pension plan, claiming 42 years of benefit accrual service, and arguing that he could not have quit in 1994 because he continued to receive LTD benefits as if on disability leave until 2007. Further, the insurance company must have been satisfied with the medical records he submitted because it continued to pay his LTD benefit until 2007, giving him no reason to quit. The pension plan denied his claim for a disability pension, but commenced pension payments to him in deferred vested status based on his 29 years of service from 1965 to 1994. Although the court did not rule in the employee's favor, the plan sponsor incurred considerable, avoidable expense.
28 Treas. Reg. § 1.410(a)-7.
29 Treas. Reg. § 1.410(a)-7.
30 38 U.S.C. § 4318(b)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 414(u)(2).
31 38 U.S.C. § 4318(b)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 414(u)(2).
32 26 U.S.C. § 72(p)(2)(C).
33 Treas. Reg. § 1.72(p)-1.
34 Id.; 26 U.S.C. § 414(a)(4).
35 Treas. Reg. § 1.72(p)-1.
36 26 U.S.C. § 4975.
37 Treas. Reg. § 1.72(p)-1.
38 Treas. Reg. § 1.72(p)-1.
39 26 U.S.C. § 72(m)(7).
40 26 U.S.C. § 72(m)(7).
41 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(c)(2).
42 26 U.S.C. § 409A(a)(2)(A)(ii); Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-3(a)(2).
43 Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(h)(1)(ii).
44 Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(h)(1)(ii).
45 Treas. Reg. §1.409A-1(h)(1).
Joni Andrioff is a Shareholder and Michael Congiu is an Associate in Littler Mendelson's Chicago office. Michelle Barrett is a Shareholder in the San Francisco office. Steven Friedman is a Shareholder in the New York office. Susan Hoffman is a Shareholder in the Philadelphia office. Diane Kimberlin is a Shareholder in the Los Angeles / Century City office. Adam Peters is an Associate in the Dallas office. Michelle Thomas is Special Counsel in the Washington D.C. / Northern Virginia offices, and George Wood is the Office Managing Shareholder of the Minneapolis office. If you would like further information, please contact your Littler attorney at 1.888.Littler, info@littler.com, or Ms. Andrioff at jandrioff@littler.com, Mr. Congiu at mcongiu@littler.com, Ms. Barrett at mbarrett@littler.com, Mr. Friedman at sfriedman@littler.com, Ms. Hoffman at shoffman@littler.com, Ms. Kimberlin at dkimberlin@littler.com, Mr. Peters at apeters@littler.com, Ms. Thomas at mpthomas@littler.com, or Mr. Wood at gwood@littler.com.
Latest PostsIllinois Becomes Seventh State to Expand Employment Rights to Domestic Workers