insurance premiums

[tfair]

What is the name of your state? Alabama
Is it legal for an employer to pay premiums for family insurance coverage on one employee and make the another employee to pay the difference between single and family coverage?

 

[fairisfair]

of course it is legal. They don't have to pay for your insurance at all.

 

[Beth3]

What is the name of your state? Alabama
Is it legal for an employer to pay premiums for family insurance coverage on one employee and make the another employee to pay the difference between single and family coverage?

That depends on the basis on which the decision is made. Employees in the same "class" (as defined in the employer's Group Health Plan Document) must be treated the same. However classes of employees can be defined in many different ways - office vs. shop, management vs. non-management, exempt vs. non-exempt, executive vs. everyone else, more senior vs. less senior, etc.

If classes of employees are defined in a non-discriminatory manner and everyone within that class is treated the same, then yes, what your employer is doing is legal.

 

[cbg]

My question would be which employee is the exception? If all other employees get the difference paid and they are refusing to pay it for one, I see a problem.

But if most employees do not get the difference and as a matter of hiring negotiation, the employer offered fully paid insurance to a single employee as an exception, I don't see any legal issues with that.

 

[tfair]

Isn't that discrimination?

There are only 2 employees, both in the same job discription. My husband has worked at this company for over 18 years. They have always paid family coverage on the other employee. I have always had coverage with my employer. I recently lost my job and husband added me to his insurance. A month later they started cutting the difference in family and single coverage out on my husband's pay check. But they still pay family coverage on the other employee. Isn't that discrimination?

My question would be which employee is the exception? If all other employees get the difference paid and they are refusing to pay it for one, I see a problem.

But if most employees do not get the difference and as a matter of hiring negotiation, the employer offered fully paid insurance to a single employee as an exception, I don't see any legal issues with that.

 

[fairisfair]

only TWO employees?? With employer sponsored health care?? Or is this a private plan that the employer reimburses you for?? in either case, it is possible that they are expending an equal amount on each employee.

 

[Beth3]

A month later they started cutting the difference in family and single coverage out on my husband's pay check. But they still pay family coverage on the other employee. Isn't that discrimination? No.

Has your husband asked his employer about the difference in premium payments? We can't guess here what the employer's logic or rationale is.

 

[tfair]

It is a employer sponsored health care plan. There are no reimbursments. After recieving the first check that the premium was cut from, (actually 5 weeks after adding me on) my husband did ask why his check had been cut. The employers response was that he could not afford to pay anymore for insurance. My husband then ask was he still paying the other employees family coverage. Yes he still was and yes he was going to continue to do so but he couldn't afford to add anymore to the premium he was already paying.

 

[ecmst12]

So if both the employees are in the same class, didn't Beth just say that they DO have to be treated the same?

 

[cbg]

It is only ILLEGAL discrimination if the difference is based on race, religion, national origin or other protected characteristic.

 

[ecmst12]

So in other words, what Beth said is wrong.

 

[mlane58]

So in other words, what Beth said is wrong.

NO that is not what cbg is saying, re-read beth's post:

That depends on the basis on which the decision is made. Employees in the same "class" (as defined in the employer's Group Health Plan Document) must be treated the same. However classes of employees can be defined in many different ways - office vs. shop, management vs. non-management, exempt vs. non-exempt, executive vs. everyone else, more senior vs. less senior, etc.
If classes of employees are defined in a non-discriminatory manner and everyone within that class is treated the same, then yes, what your employer is doing is legal.