Question
What is the name of your state? n/a
In previous posts, cbg said that except in Hawaii an employer has no obiligation to provide health insurance and that if dependent coverage is offered to one dependent (wife) it has to be offered to all dependent wives. (all of this in non-union setting)
I need clarification. If insurance is offered to employees but not offered to one employee after the 90 day trial period, is this legal?
(An associate of mine, a legal nurse consultant, asked me this question and we are having difficulty finding a definitive law.)
Thank you!
EC
Answer
If all the employees are similarly qualified, and if the plan document calls for all employees who are so qualified to be offered the insurance, then yes, it would be illegal to single out the employee to NOT receive coverage.
However, I couldn't say for absolutely certain that this is illegal without confirming that they are similarly qualified. For example, if all the other employees are full time and the excluded employee is part time, then depending on the wording of the plan document, that might be legal.
Can you supply a few more details?
Answer
cbg,
Yes, I can get details about employment status, etc. I'll post them later this evening. Thank you for responding.
Do you (cbg & beth3) provide expert consultation for reviews of records and/or do you provide expert witness services?
Thanks!
EC
Answer
Ellencee, I'll e-mail you about that.
Answer
Ellencee, anything more? Did you get my e-mail?
Answer
cbg
There's additional information. I did not get your emails!
EC
Answer
The e-mail address I had from the last time you and I corresponded off the boards was [email]ellencee@hotmail.com[/email]. Is that still correct?
Answer
cbg
No, it's [email]ellencee@earthlink.net[/email]
EC
Answer
Okay, resending.
Ellencee, due to some confusion at my end with people coming in and out and six things going on at once, I sent you the e-mail from a different address than I intended. Please respond to the e-mail address included in the signature.