Are different lengths of enrollment periods discriminatory?

[Guest irash]

I am curious about whether or not an Employer can allow new hires 31 days for enrollment for those employees who are eligible on the date of hire; and, allowing 91 days for enrollment for those employees who are subject to a 60 day waiting period.

Has anyone ever seen this practice before? If applicable, please cite the 125 regulation or ERISA regulation that would make this discriminatory or unacceptable.

Thanks!

[Steve72]

Unless I am missing something fundamental here, it sounds like the employer is allowing everyone 31 days from the date of eligibility, which is perfectly acceptable.

[Guest irash]

Actually, what the employer is doing for those with the 60 day waiting period is allowing them access to enroll from their date of hire through the end of the 31 day period following their "eligibility date" ie, 61st day.

Does this change your opinion?

Thanks!

[mroberts]

I don't see any problem here. There's nothing saying that an employee can't submit an application for enrollment before becoming eligible. They just won't be on the plan until the 91st day.

[Steve72]

I don't see any problem either. I agree with mroberts.

[Guest micecheeks]

I am in the process of writing a proposal to the company I work for to update our benefits. I used to work for a company where the benefit eligiblily was different based on class of employee (hourly, non-exempt, exempt). I would like to propose that to my current company. This would include health, life, vacation, sick pay, and holidays. I am wondering if this still would fly regs wise. Also, I would love to find out how I can research what other companies in my same industry have for benefits. I work for a company with several divisions: retail hardware store, lumber yard, and commerical construction. Please let me know if there are websites that gather data like Salary Search websites. Thanks.