On October 1, 2015 The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to rule on five cases involving Total Rewards. These cases are outlined below with a brief description and the date set for argument.
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan (Arg. 11/09)
This case is seeking to determine whether a man must repay an insurance company for medical expenses it paid after he received a settlement from the drunk driver who injured him. Montanile’s insurer, The National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan paid $121,044.02 of Montanile’s initial medical expenses, according to the petition. After Montanile sued the drunk driver and received a $500,000 settlement, the Nat’l Elevator Plan sought reimbursement of the $121,000 it paid for Montanile’s medical expenses. The court must interpret the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal law that regulate employee health insurance plans, which contains a reimbursement clause. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (Arg. 11/10) In this case, the employees worked on a “gang-time” system, which means they were paid only for time they were at their working stations and the production line was moving. The employees sued Tyson and argued that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law by not paying appropriate compensation for the time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing at the beginning and end of the work day and lunch break. The questions in this case are, “May differences among plaintiff class members be ignored for the purpose of class certification when liability and damages will be calculated based on statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to an average?” and “May a class action be certified and maintained when the class contains members who were not injured and therefore have no legal right to damages?” Green v. Brennan (Arg. 11/30) This case seeks to determine whether, under federal employment discrimination law, the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run when an employee resigns or at the time of an employer 's last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation. …show more content…
After being placed on emergency placement for “mismanagement”, an agreement was signed on December 16, 2009 under which Green’s emergency placement ended, and he was allowed to use accumulated leave to compensate him for the suspension time. He was removed from his Englewood position and given the choice between taking a demoted position in Wyoming, 300 miles away, with a $40,000 pay cut, or retiring. Green ultimately submitted his resignation on February 9, 2010, effective March 31. On March 22, he contacted an EEO counselor, 41 days after his February 9 resignation and alleged that, given the choice he was forced to make, he had been constructively discharged. Green sued and the District of Colorado court found that his signing the December 16 agreement triggered the 45-day filing period for his constructive discharge claim and thus held it time-barred. Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Arg. 12/2) The question in this case is, “Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit err in holding that the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempted a Vermont state statute regarding reporting requirements as applied to a self-insured employee
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan (Arg. 11/09)
This case is seeking to determine whether a man must repay an insurance company for medical expenses it paid after he received a settlement from the drunk driver who injured him. Montanile’s insurer, The National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan paid $121,044.02 of Montanile’s initial medical expenses, according to the petition. After Montanile sued the drunk driver and received a $500,000 settlement, the Nat’l Elevator Plan sought reimbursement of the $121,000 it paid for Montanile’s medical expenses. The court must interpret the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal law that regulate employee health insurance plans, which contains a reimbursement clause. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (Arg. 11/10) In this case, the employees worked on a “gang-time” system, which means they were paid only for time they were at their working stations and the production line was moving. The employees sued Tyson and argued that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law by not paying appropriate compensation for the time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing at the beginning and end of the work day and lunch break. The questions in this case are, “May differences among plaintiff class members be ignored for the purpose of class certification when liability and damages will be calculated based on statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to an average?” and “May a class action be certified and maintained when the class contains members who were not injured and therefore have no legal right to damages?” Green v. Brennan (Arg. 11/30) This case seeks to determine whether, under federal employment discrimination law, the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run when an employee resigns or at the time of an employer 's last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation. …show more content…
After being placed on emergency placement for “mismanagement”, an agreement was signed on December 16, 2009 under which Green’s emergency placement ended, and he was allowed to use accumulated leave to compensate him for the suspension time. He was removed from his Englewood position and given the choice between taking a demoted position in Wyoming, 300 miles away, with a $40,000 pay cut, or retiring. Green ultimately submitted his resignation on February 9, 2010, effective March 31. On March 22, he contacted an EEO counselor, 41 days after his February 9 resignation and alleged that, given the choice he was forced to make, he had been constructively discharged. Green sued and the District of Colorado court found that his signing the December 16 agreement triggered the 45-day filing period for his constructive discharge claim and thus held it time-barred. Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Arg. 12/2) The question in this case is, “Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit err in holding that the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempted a Vermont state statute regarding reporting requirements as applied to a self-insured employee