Continuation of Health Insurance Coverage by IL  may seem unnecessary, but it is required under Illinois Continuation laws.  The Illinois Continuation laws apply to employers or companies of any size and provides for the following:

1) spousal and dependent continuation of health insurance coverage;

2) written notice to the employee of his or her right to elect Illinois Continuation Health Coverage;

3) the employee bears a 100% of the premiums costs for electing the coverage;

4) the employee must elect the coverage within 60 days of the date his or her employment was terminated;

5) benefits for hospital, surgical or major medical are the same as that under the previous group coverage; and

6) the Illinois Continuation coverage lasts for nine months from the date of termination or separation of employment. 

If you have any questions regarding the requirements for Continuation of Health Insurance Coverage in IL, then please feel free to contact us.

A recent DC Appellate Circuit Court decision may create a new twist on the factors used to determine whether or not an individual is an employee or an independent contractor.  The DC Circuit Court of Appeals recently focused on the degree to which FedEx delivery drivers had the “opportunity and functioned as an entrepreneur”, instead of the traditional focus on the “right to control.” 

Although this decision involved classification of individuals for purposes of determining their rights to bargain as a Union with FedEx, the test and factors discussed are the common law factors used by courts to determine the employment status of an individual. 

The new standard resulted in FedEx delivery drivers being classified as independent contractors.  The DC court also focused on the following: 1) the drivers had their own vehicles; 2) the drivers could use the vehicles for personal or other commercial purposes; 3) the drivers were not subject to disciplinary actions; 4) the drivers signed independent contractor agreements; and 5) the drivers were responsible for the costs of operating and maintaining their vehicles. 

Of course, it is not clear if IL courts will follow this line of reasoning, but it does provide another way for business owners, entrepreneurs and companies to structure relationships with individuals and justify the classification.  Also, individuals need to be aware of the ruling to recognize the potential for greater enforceability of such an independent contractor agreement; otherwise, individuals may be unable to get out of such an arrangement.    

See. FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 07-1931 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2009). 

Many employers and employees do not understand the types of damages or remedies that are available for employment discrimination claims (“ED claims”).  ED claims are different from ordinary contract or tort claims in that they do not provide the typical compensatory damages. 

For example, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), compensatory damages are not available, unless there is a retaliation claim.  Pfeifer v. Essex Wire Corp., 682 F.2d 684, 685-688 (7th Cir. 1982) and Moskowitz v. Trustees of Purdue Univ., 5 F.3d 279, 283-84, (7th Cir. 1993).  However, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employees that are able to establish discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or sexual harassment may recover compensatory damages in the form of back pay, front pay and lost future earnings.  Pals v. Schpel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 499-501, (7th Cir. 2000) and Hildenbrandt v. Illinois Dep’t of Natural Resources, 347 F.3d 1014, 1031 (7th Cir. 2003). 

However, back pay, front pay and lost future earnings are equitable remedies that are determined by a judge, instead of a jury.  Pals, 220 F.3d 495, 499-501, (7th Cir. 2000) and Hildenbrandt, 347 F.3d 1014, 1031 (7th Cir. 2003).  Moreover, front pay and lost future earnings are different, because lost future earnings compensate employees for diminishment in future earnings based on an injury to their reputation instead of future salary or wages they could have obtained from the discriminatory employer.  Williams v. Pharmacia Inc., 137 F.3d 944, 953-54, (7th Cir. 1998). 

In addition, there are caps on damage awards and employees have a duty to mitigate their damages.  Understanding the types of remedies and how they are awarded is crucial to litigating and negotiating ED claims.  If you have any concerns or questions regarding litigating or negotiating employment ED claims, then please feel free to contact us.

See Attached Cases: hildenbrandt; pals; and pfieffer.