Leaderboard

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2590.702 This is the relevant HIPAA nondiscrimination regulation. Also, remember, if the employer has 50 or more full time and full time equivalent employees, hours for purposes of determining full time employees required to be covered to avoid the employer shared responsibility penalties include hrs on leave for sickness, fmla and other paid leaves of absence.

That sounds like it might be another QDRO, rather than an amended one. Make sure you seek competent legal advice that has experience in QDROs.

Chaz is correct. By way of example, I am hired on Jan , have a waiting period of 60 days, and become eligible on March 1. I have been at work since Jan 1, but injure my back on Feb 27 and am in the hospital on March 1. The employer cannot deny my coverage becoming effective Mar 1 because I am not at work due to a health factor. By way of another example, I am hired Jan 1, with an immediate eligibility. Work is closed that day, I cannot report, therefor my coverage will be delayed until the first day that I work, presumable Jan 2. Some actively at work definitions do not meet the HIPPA requirements.

Yes, you are reading it right. In addition, you should call the local Department of Labor and tell them what you suspect; they will actually get on the case very quickly and find out what the client is doing. He is not allowed to hold the money more than a couple of day and if he does, he is subject to penalties (and even could go to jail, though that's unlikely). It is a criminal act not to pay over the withheld deferrals.

Off the top of my head, I believe the language in the plan is referencing the HIPAA nondiscrimination rules, which I recall prohibit applying an actively at work requirement that has the effect of excluding from coverage an employee who is absent from work by reason of a health status-related factor. I don't have the applicable section of HIPAA handy, but that is where I would start.

Not really. In a true DB plan the employer pays the cost of the ancillary death benefit, it does not reduce the normal retirement benefit. So there really isn't any "election" to be made. Why would employees opt out of a free (to them) benefit? DC plans are different - the premium comes out of the account, so the participants pay the cost of the death benefit in a reduced retirement benefit. Here there is a valid choice to be made by participants. Death benefits have to be non-discriminatory. If they are a function of the retirement benefits that are also non-discriminatory, all's well. So the death benefit (e.g. 100x the monthly benefit) is non-discriminatory in a DB providing non-discriminatory retirement benefits. But now, suppose the DB plan is tiered - 415 max to owner, 0.5% benefit to NHCEs, then paired and tested with a DC plan for non-discrimination. The DB benefits are discriminatory on their own, that's why it's aggregated with the DC plan. So if a death benefit (100x for example) is provided in the DB plan only, the death benefit is also discriminatory. If the NHCEs death benefit that would be non-discriminatory is provided in the DC plan, that's a problem too because it reduces the projected retirement benefit in the DC plan. If the DB plan provides a death benefit that would be non-discriminatory based on some theoretical non-discriminatory retirement benefit that the DB plan doesn't actually provide, then the DB plan likely blows the incidental limitations. CBs are typically a variation of this tiered DB. The CB benefits themselves would be discriminatory, so any death benefits that were just a function of the CB retirement benefits would also be discriminatory. If the CB is stand alone, then the death benefits would be non-discriminatory but again, the CB is a DB plan so the death benefit is employer-paid, so giving employees an opt-out for a free benefit is a non-starter. Now there are lots of ways that some try to beat insurance into the plan using a "if it doesn't fit get a bigger hammer" approach. Some say giving ees the "option" for insurance in the DC plan works - I don't see how. Others figure out how much the death benefit needs to be in order to be non-discriminatory, then put it in the DC plan but also increase the ER contribution to the ees in the DC plan to cover the additional cost of the death benefit without reducing the retirement benefit needed to be non-discriminatory. In a theoretical sense this might work, but I can't imagine a TPA being able to make a profit on this unless they are getting a commission split. The fee-based market does not support the fees that would be necessary to adequately compensate us for this amount of brain trauma each year. I imagine there are a few other approaches as well. For my own practice, retirement plans are complex enough as they are, I don't need to find ways to complicate them further, and I've never seen an rigorous economic analysis demonstrating the benefits of having life insurance in the plan. So I choose not to go here.

I don't believe you can withhold a person's paycheck or threaten termination because that person failed to return a completed election. (We do recommend that clients try to get back zero elections.) I am pretty sure the former would violate employment law. While I am not an attorney, a person is entitled to payment for working as agreed, for the compensation paid. Unless you have something in an employment contract, I just don't see how you could do this without violating something in labor laws. For the latter, the same logic would also apply, plus we all know that a participant's participation under a plan is not a guarantee of employment, I suggest that a person's participation under a plan (including completion of elections) shouldn't have an impact on the person's on-going employed. Again, I am not a lawyer, but common sense suggests that taking those position would also have some negative repercussions, including employee moral. What I do think should be done is documenting with a follow-up to the person. Or, for a large group, have an area manager sign off on a statement saying election forms were provided to the person. The old adage of you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink seems appropriate. Protection lies in some form of documentation showing the person was offered the election sounds like the answer to me. Having a third party (manager?) witness should be sufficient. Another suggestion, would dovetail into the practice of include the SPD in any "new employee paperwork". We use a small form that has the person acknowledge receipt of the SPD. Perhaps add to this "SPD Receipt" a statement that election forms must be completed and returned, getting something signed by the employee where they agree to returning elections. Then, when the person refuses to return an election, this signed statement could be produced, demonstrating that a zero election does need to be returned by that person. Clearly not a perfect solution, but at minimum it does demonstrate that the employer does believe elections by employees are important.

I originally hail from Michigan. The city Hell is only 59 miles from Detroit, so the situation is even funnier, or at least appropriate.