Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the ?Ç£EEOC?Ç¥) addresses many common employment issues regarding COVID-19 vaccinations, including the applicability of certain federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ?Ç£ADA?Ç¥), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and Title VII of the of the Civil Rights Act (?Ç£Title VII?Ç¥). In accordance with this EEOC guidance, an employer may require employees who are physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to certain ?Ç£reasonable accommodations?Ç¥ under the ADA and Title VII for employees who are unable to get vaccinated due to a covered disability, pregnancy, or sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. The guidance provides a list of examples of reasonable accommodations, such as requiring the use of face masks, social distancing, working modified shifts, periodic testing for COVID-19, and giving employees the opportunity to telework or accept a reassignment. In addition, an employer… Continue Reading
The IRS recently updated its Operational Compliance Checklist (the ?Ç£Checklist?Ç¥) to include qualification requirements that will become effective during the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. Examples of items added to the Checklist for 2021 and 2022 include, among other things: Final regulations relating to updated life expectancy and distribution tables used for determining minimum required distributions; The SECURE Act requirement that qualified cash or deferred arrangements must allow long-term employees (i.e., employees who work at least 500 but less than 1,000 hours per year for three consecutive 12-month periods beginning on or after January 1, 2021) to participate; and Temporary relief from the physical presence requirement for spousal consents under qualified retirement plans. The Checklist is only available online and is updated periodically to reflect new legislation and IRS guidance. The Checklist does not, however, include routine, periodic changes, such as cost-of-living increases, spot segment rates, and applicable mortality tables,… Continue Reading
As discussed in our prior blog post here, effective as of February 10, 2021, employer-provided group health plans that impose nonquantitative treatment limitations (?Ç£NQTLs?Ç¥) on mental health or substance use disorder benefits (?Ç£MH/SA Benefits?Ç¥) must have documentation demonstrating that the NQTLs satisfy the mental health and substance use disorder parity rules (?Ç£Compliance Documentation?Ç¥). As discussed in another one of our prior blog posts here, the DOL has identified particular NQTLs on which it will focus its enforcement efforts. The DOL also clearly communicated that general statements to the effect that the plan has compliant processes will not meet the Compliance Documentation requirements. We have noted that some third party administrators are producing reports and other documents that fail to satisfy the Compliance Documentation requirements. For example, such documents may refer to the administrator?ÇÖs internal policies or procedures without adequately describing them, or they may simply incorporate internal policies by reference… Continue Reading
As we previously reported here, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (?Ç£ARPA?Ç¥) provides a 100% COBRA premium subsidy to any qualified beneficiary who is entitled to COBRA coverage due to an involuntary termination of employment or reduction in hours of employment. Employers will receive a tax credit for the cost of COBRA premiums for April 1 to September 30, 2021. The IRS recently issued FAQs addressing many issues related to the subsidy, including: (i) subsidy eligibility, (ii) what qualifies as a reduction in hours or an involuntary termination of employment, (iii) the type of coverage eligible for the subsidy, (iv) when the subsidy period begins and ends, (v) the extended election period, (vi) coordination with the extended deadlines due to the COVID national emergency (?Ç£Outbreak Period Extensions?Ç¥), (vii) payments to insurers, (viii) application to state continuation coverage, and (ix) calculation and claiming of the subsidy tax credit. One of… Continue Reading
The IRS recently issued Rev. Proc. 2021-25, which sets the 2022 calendar year limits on (i) annual contributions that can be made to a health savings account (?Ç£HSA?Ç¥) and (ii) annual deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums under a high deductible health plan (?Ç£HDHP?Ç¥). The 2022 limits are as follows: Annual HSA contribution limits: $3,650 for self-only coverage ($50 increase from 2021) and $7,300 for family coverage ($100 increase from 2021); Minimum HDHP deductibles: $1,400 for self-only coverage (no change from 2021) and $2,800 for family coverage (no change from 2021); and HDHP out-of-pocket maximum limits: $7,050 for self-only coverage ($50 increase from 2021) and $14,100 for family coverage ($100 increase from 2021). Rev. Proc. 2021-25 is available here.
IRS Clarifies Taxability of Dependent Care Benefits Provided Pursuant to a Carryover or Extended Grace Period
The IRS recently issued Notice 2021-26 (the ?Ç£Notice?Ç¥), which addresses certain questions that were not specifically answered in the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), and subsequent IRS guidance (collectively, the ?Ç£CAA Guidance?Ç¥). The CAA Guidance addressed the taxability of dependent care benefits provided under a dependent care assistance program (?Ç£DCAP?Ç¥) when a carryover or extended grace period is applied.?á As discussed in our prior blog post here, the CAA Guidance permits employers to adopt (i) a carryover of unused DCAP funds from taxable years 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 (?Ç£CAA Carryover?Ç¥) or (ii) an extended grace period for incurring DCAP claims for plan years ending in 2020 and 2021 (?Ç£CAA Extended Grace Period?Ç¥). The CAA Guidance confirms that any unused DCAP amounts carried over from one year (?Ç£Prior Year?Ç¥) to, or available in, the subsequent… Continue Reading
During the pandemic, many employers laid off and terminated employees as businesses shut-down and then rehired employees when businesses reopened. Employers who sponsored retirement plans and incurred these fluctuations in their workforce risked that the layoffs and terminations could trigger partial retirement plan terminations, which would require 100% vesting of affected participants. Whether a partial plan termination has occurred is generally based on the facts and circumstances, but there is a rebuttable presumption that a partial plan termination has occurred if 20% or more of a plan?ÇÖs active participants have had an employer-initiated termination within a given plan year. In September of 2020, the IRS issued FAQs to clarify that when an employee was terminated and rehired within 2020, they would not be counted for purposes of determining whether a partial plan termination occurred (we reported on this guidance here). Section 209 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief… Continue Reading
HHS recently issued its final ?Ç£Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2022?Ç¥ (the ?Ç£Notice?Ç¥), which includes the maximum annual limitations on cost-sharing that will apply to ?Ç£essential health benefits?Ç¥ in 2022 under non-grandfathered group health plans subject to the Affordable Care Act. For this purpose, cost-sharing generally includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and other required expenditures that are qualified medical expenses with respect to essential health benefits available under the plan. The 2022 limitations are (i) $8,700 for self-only coverage and (ii) $17,400 for other than self-only coverage. The Notice is available here.
In our prior blog post here, we discussed the case of Anastos v. IKEA Property, Inc., which highlighted the importance of an employer?ÇÖs understanding of how its group term life insurance coverage is impacted by changes in employment status, such as termination of employment, retirement, or a leave of absence. This understanding is necessary for the employer to correctly communicate to employees when life insurance coverage will end, when evidence of insurability will be required, and the requirements necessary to convert coverage. In Anastos, the employer drafted its retiree benefit plan to state that eligible retirees could continue life insurance and that, in most cases, coverage would be guaranteed with no medical certification required. When a retiree attempted to obtain this coverage, the employer admitted that its plan was misleading and that it could not obtain underwriting to provide that kind of life insurance continuation benefit. The retiree sued, and… Continue Reading
A recent federal district court case,?áAnastos v. IKEA Property, Inc., illustrates that a release agreement executed upon employment termination may not offer blanket protection for employers against potential future ERISA or other claims that arise after termination (and after the release agreement has been executed). In Anastos, an employee sued his former employer alleging the information provided to him about the employer?ÇÖs retiree life insurance program led him to believe that no medical certification would be required to continue his life insurance coverage post-retirement. After the employee retired, his employer informed him that life insurance coverage was not available post-termination under the employer-provided plan and that, instead, he would have to convert the coverage to a whole life insurance policy with MetLife. MetLife required a medical examination before it would issue the policy, and the employee would not be able to satisfy the medical examination requirement. The employer filed a… Continue Reading