Changing Eligibility... and then again

A client is looking to hire a top tier employee.  The prospect has a counter offer.  Plan eligibility is a problem.  The competitor has immediate entry while my client has a 1 year service requirement.  I was asked, can we change the eligibility to get this one new hire into the plan immediately and then change it back?   And if technically it is ok do we have to wait a certain amount of time before we tweak the eligibility requirement again?  I totally understand, if anyone else is hired during that time gets to enter based on the existing plan design. 

Is this playing games with eligibility frowned upon? 

Playing games with eligibility generally is frowned upon.. by all of the other employees.

The top tier hire will be an NHCE for their first year of employment since their prior year compensation from the company is zero.  The plan could be amended to say the individual is immediately eligible and would be discriminating if favor of an NHCE.  The individual could be identified by name, by title, or by any other unique identifier.  Note that any plan amendment must be communicated to all eligible employees so the plan will be advertising to everyone in writing in the SMM or SPD that this individual received special treatment.

The client should know if the employees are as excited as the client is about the prospect of this individual joining the firm.  If so, some employees may be welcoming.  Alternatively, the client could consider bumping up the employer contributions above normal for the year as a gesture of goodwill.

I suggest the client explore other potential options - bonus compensation, deferred compensation, equivalent value perks... - rather than messing around with the pan.

IMO, if this top tier hire is communicating that their decision is based on a year of eligibility for the plan, this suggests their loyalty is higher to themself over the client and comes across as arrogant.  This type of individual often is toxic.

I'll be really honest. I hate 1 year eligibility. I dislike 6 months.  Even if there is a safe harbor contribution. I'd be curious if the plan has SH vs match with a vesting schedule/forfeitures for early turnover. Even if there is high turnover, I still wouldn't suggest much more than a 3 month.  This last job I had to wait to 1st day after 6 months, so I started as close to the end of the month as possible to be eligible that much earlier.    

I guess I'd ask the business reason to keep it at 1 year eligibility at all rather than making an exception for one employee. Does the employer have a problem passing nondiscrimination testing if not SH?

So I understand it can definitely depend on the industry/employee pool. That said, have there been other complaints about waiting that long to start?

If not changing for all, I agree with a bonus or other perks.