California Human Resource Blog

Archive for the ‘employers’ Category

Employee Health Insurance Programs

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Anthem/Blue Cross recently announced a 39% rate increase on individual policies, which they put on hold after the significant negative firestorm they created. Blue Shield has imposed increases on HSA plans of 20-67% in the last year. Mid-size and large group plans are faring better; however, “better” is somewhat relative when it’s still in the 13-15% range year after year. Maintaining a health insurance plan for your employees is becoming more challenging every year.

I have spent a large part of the past 20 years managing the benefit plans for YPP and it’s become more difficult each year to find that balance between affordable rates and quality of coverage. No one wants to provide a plan that employees don’t believe gives them adequate insurance benefits, but doing so has become much more difficult.

YPP’s HR Managers have spent a lot of time in recent years helping clients evaluate their benefit offerings and identify ways to manage costs. This assessment is different for each business, since it can include any of the following:

  • What is the goal of providing benefits? Retention is normally the answer, but has it really helped retention and do other companies you compete for candidates with offer them?

  • What classes of employees should you identify and provide benefits for? If you establish these correctly, you do not have to provide the same level of benefits for each class.

  • What contribution level should you provide, balancing the need to meet the carriers’ contribution and participation requirements with premium costs.

In this challenging economic environment with all signs pointing to staggering benefits cost increases your HR staff needs to take a proactive approach. It isn’t good enough to just passively shrug off the annual cost increase. Challenge your HR staff to give you a complete picture of the competitive landscape and the internal organizational dynamics driving your benefit structure. Some well spent HR creativity can minimize your benefits cash outlay and maximize your return.


Caution – Even Good Intentions May Violate Employee Rights

Friday, August 21st, 2009

Sometimes an employer’s best intentions will lead decisions or actions which unintentionally violate an employee’s rights and can even lead to discrimination charges.

We regularly see this happen when an employee returns from leave or notifies their employer of a pregnancy or other medical issue. Often the employer, either out of concern for the employee, business productivity, or company liability, wants to impose restrictions or limitations on an employee’s job activities beyond what their physician has outlined or what is legally permissible. Even, in very rare instances, an employer will want to terminate an employee who is pregnant or otherwise limited by a medical issue because they do not understand the legal protections afforded to their workers or find required accommodations inconvenient or too costly.

In the case of a pregnancy or other medical issue an employer cannot allow personal bias, business productivity or even concern for the worker or your business to overrule the legal protections afforded employees. Seek professional guidance before limiting an employee’s work activities or taking an adverse action against an employee who is pregnant or has a medical issue to ensure you fully understand the applicable laws and regulations. Sound advice can help you avoid unintentionally violating an employee’s legal rights and the serious consequences that may follow.

We recently received this from Shepard Mullin, one of the leading labor law firms and YPP’s employment law firm, illustrating just what can happen when an employer oversteps these legal boundaries.

Unsubstantiated Concerns Ruled Pregnancy Discrimination – A Cautionary Tale

The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a decision by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (“FEHC”) finding that an employer discriminated against a pregnant employee in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In SASCO Electric v. FEHC, an extremely experienced female who served as a second captain of a yacht was terminated shortly after she informed her employer that she was pregnant. Her employer was admittedly disappointed by the news because he believed that “mothers do not want to work in the boating business.” Moreover, he believed the employee’s plan to work as long as possible during her pregnancy was “cavalier.” Further, he had liability concerns (e.g., her exposure to chemicals and possibly falling on the boat which could lead to a miscarriage). These fears lead the employer to terminate her employment under the guise of a layoff.

The court held that the employer’s paternalistic assumptions took away the woman’s right to decide when during her pregnancy she should stop working and when she should return to work after her child’s birth. In addition, it held that the “reduction-in-force” reason for her termination was a pretext because when additional help was needed, the employer did not attempt to recall the plaintiff and instead hired less experienced individuals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the award to plaintiff of back pay, even for the period of time the plaintiff’s doctor would have restricted her work because the employer would have had an obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation (e.g., temporarily transferring her to a less strenuous or hazardous position). The court also affirmed the award of $85,000 for emotional distress damages and the FEHC’s decision to impose an administrative fine as there was clear and convincing evidence of oppression and malice.

The SASCO Electric case serves as a good reminder to employers to tread carefully when dealing with pregnancy issues. Employers must not impose their own views onto expecting employees and instead should work with them to explore reasonable accommodations in order to avoid allegations of discrimination.