benefits terminated

[unLTD]

Can an employer, in the state of MISSOURI, change your status from full time to part time in order to make you ineligible for health and other benefits? This went into effect Feb. 1 2004. I have always maintained the requirements for full time with benefits, as stated in the employee handbook, and continue to do so. This happened to 4 out of 8 full time associates at my location. Many more company wide.

And can one "status changed" employee get to extend the company health plan until they are covered under there spouse's insurance and others only offered COBRA?

No one has had a good answer to why certain employees were chosen over others.

Any advice?

unLTD

 

[cbg]

No employer in any state can change an employee's status from full time to part time FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE of denying them benefits. However, they can change them from full time to part time for legitimate business reasons and if that means benefits are cut, it would be legal. Can you PROVE that it was to deny you benefits and not for any other reason?

With regards to some employees having benefits extended until they can be eligible for spousal insurance, unless the employees were selected on the basis of race, religion, gender etc., that's legal. BTW, in the very large majority of cases the spouse's insurance should have been able to pick up the affected employees within 30 days.

 

[unLTD]

Can you be more specific as far as "legitimate business reasons "? denying benefits to help the company's bottom line, or because an employee no longer meets company guidelines?

Company guidelines define an employee that averages 32 + hours in a 12 week period as full time. My status was changed, my benefits withdrawn, yet I have averaged more than 32 hours for the last 16 weeks. The only difference between now and before the status change is the elimination of my benefits.

3 men (myself included) and 1 woman were reduced to part time status, and the only one that was offered an extension on benefits was the woman, who had a waiting period before her husband could pick her up on his insurance. Would this be gender discrimination?

I appreciate your time and advice.

 

[cbg]

If the company can no longer afford to pay that many employees on full time status, that is a legitimate business reason.

If the company has lost business and no longer needs that many employees, they have two obvious answers; put some or all on part time, or keep some on full time and lay the others off. Both are legitimate business reasons.

It is NOT okay to say, "Let's make Joe part time so he can't have benefits". It IS okay to say, "We just lost the XYZ contract, (or didn't get the XYZ contract, or renewed the XYZ contract at much less attractive rates, or any other business reason) so we can't afford/don't need Joe to be on full time. It's a shame that he'll have to lose his benefits too."

It is only gender discrimination that they allowed the woman to stay on the company plan until her spousal insurance kicked in, if they did so BECAUSE she is a woman. If she was the first one to ask, or if she had extenuating circumstances, or any other reason unrelated to her gender, it is not gender discrimination (or any other kind of illegal discrimination).

 

[hotsushi]

Is this covered in the US Code?

I was just wondering which legal authority prevents employers from reducing your hours. If you're at-will, can't they fire you without reason anyway?

 

[Beth3]

I was just wondering which legal authority prevents employers from reducing your hours. None. An employer is perfectly free to change an employee's work schedule.

If you're at-will, can't they fire you without reason anyway? Yes. An employee can be fired for any reason, or no reason, as long as it's not a specifically prohibited reason (age, gender, race, etc.)