We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 12

Delayed effective date for nondiscrimination rules in fully-insured group health plans
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 23 2010

As stated in Issue 14, PPACA prohibits fully-insured plans that have lost grandfathered status from discriminating in favor of highly compensated individuals (HCIs) in benefits or eligibility.


Nondiscrimination in fully-insured group health plans
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2010

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) (collectively the “Act”), requires all group health plans to comply with certain mandates, although some of these mandates apply only to nongrandfathered plans.


Age discrimination: health care “bridge” plan exemption
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2010

This bill provides that the prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of age contained in the Fair Employment and Housing Act do not prohibit an employer from - when a retired person becomes eligible for Medicare benefits - altering, reducing, or eliminating health benefits or health care reimbursement plans ("bridge plans") to the retiree.


Department of Labor issues proposed regulations regarding mandatory union postings for federal contractors
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 19 2009

On August 3, 2009, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding proposed regulations to implement Executive Order 13496.


SJC examines grooming policy and orders reasonable accommodation
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2009

In Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., Inc., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) vacated a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to an employer in a religious discrimination case, ruling that the employee’s request for an exemption from the company’s grooming policy did not constitute an undue hardship as a matter of law.


Lucas Deloach
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP

John P. Phillips
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP


Rebecca Pratt DeGroff
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Kyla Miller
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP