McGann v. H & H Music Company.
Author information unavailable
Abstract
Author information unavailable
Abstract
The U.S. District Court held that the plaintiff-employee's rights under the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) were not violated when his employer decided to become self-insured and to reduce maximum lifetime medical benefits from $1,000,000 to $5,000 for employees with AIDS. The purpose of ERISA is to protect the solvency of employee benefit plans. ERISA does not mandate that employers provide any particular benefits nor does it prohibit changes to health plan benefits. In order to demonstrate discrimination under ERISA, an employee must show that plan changes were made for the purpose of interfering with the rights to which an employee may become entitled. The court held that the defendant complied with the purpose and requirements of ERISA when it provided each employee with a summary plan description, notifying them that the employer could terminate or amend the plan at any time. Because the plan had suffered serious financial loses in recent years, the defendant had to make changes in the plan or terminate it.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The U.S. District Court held that the plaintiff-employee's rights under the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) were not violated when his employer decided to become self-insured and to reduce maximum lifetime medical benefits from $1,000,000 to $5,000 for employees with AIDS. The purpose of ERISA is to protect the solvency of employee benefit plans. ERISA does not mandate that employers provide any particular benefits nor does it prohibit changes to health plan benefits. In order to demonstrate discrimination under ERISA, an employee must show that plan changes were made for the purpose of interfering with the rights to which an employee may become entitled. The court held that the defendant complied with the purpose and requirements of ERISA when it provided each employee with a summary plan description, notifying them that the employer could terminate or amend the plan at any time. Because the plan had suffered serious financial loses in recent years, the defendant had to make changes in the plan or terminate it.
Key concepts: Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Employee benefits, Plaintiff, Mandate, Business, Solvency, Liability, Unfunded mandate