What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA
I work for a financial institution that merged as equals with another financial institution in July 2008. At that time, each organization had their own health insurance plans - it is still that way. Employees are segregated by the organization they worked for prior to the merger. We have been told by HR that we can't change plans.
Now we are at a new enrollment period and the plans have been modified - so that the cost would not increase for the employees. Under the new plan changes, since my insurance plan doesn’t have an in-network Ocularist, I will have to pay 100% for a new prosthetic eye (cost is around $3,000) – while under the other employer plan, it would be covered 100% up to $5,000 (they have an in-network Ocularist).
While I don’t know of any other employee who have this very specific issue, if there was an employee with the other coverage, I don’t believe it would be fair that I would have to pay 100% for a service that would be covered 100% for a fellow employee.
I contacted HR to see if I could switch to the other plan, and I was told no - that the plans would not be combined until October 2010. Each employee needs to remain in their existing plan. They said they had an agreement with both insurance companies that states that, but they won't produce it.
I feel I am being discriminated against because of the institution I worked for prior to the merger. Do I have any legal recourse.
I work for a financial institution that merged as equals with another financial institution in July 2008. At that time, each organization had their own health insurance plans - it is still that way. Employees are segregated by the organization they worked for prior to the merger. We have been told by HR that we can't change plans.
Now we are at a new enrollment period and the plans have been modified - so that the cost would not increase for the employees. Under the new plan changes, since my insurance plan doesn’t have an in-network Ocularist, I will have to pay 100% for a new prosthetic eye (cost is around $3,000) – while under the other employer plan, it would be covered 100% up to $5,000 (they have an in-network Ocularist).
While I don’t know of any other employee who have this very specific issue, if there was an employee with the other coverage, I don’t believe it would be fair that I would have to pay 100% for a service that would be covered 100% for a fellow employee.
I contacted HR to see if I could switch to the other plan, and I was told no - that the plans would not be combined until October 2010. Each employee needs to remain in their existing plan. They said they had an agreement with both insurance companies that states that, but they won't produce it.
I feel I am being discriminated against because of the institution I worked for prior to the merger. Do I have any legal recourse.
