Court holds infertility not a disability under ADA
Article Abstract:
A US district court in Iowa ruled in Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center that a self-insured medical plan did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying coverage for infertility services. The court found that infertility alone was not a disability under the ADA because, though it was an impairment, the impairment did not interfere with a major life activity. The plaintiff argued that reproduction was a major life activity. The court also found that the infertility exclusion was not a subterfuge intended to be used to discriminate against employees.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Eighth Circuit addresses definition of "significant gap" in coverage triggering termination of COBRA rights
Article Abstract:
The Federal Circuit Courts appear to have come down in favor of allowing termination of COBRA coverage in situations involving dual coverage, given the 1997 Geissal case ruling in the Eighth Circuit. That court joined two other Federal Circuit courts in ruling that COBRA relief is limited in dual coverage situations. The Eighth Circuit did weigh the question of the effects of significant gaps in coverage, but rejected the argument that a choice of other coverage only after a COBRA qualifying could result in termination of COBRA coverage.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Court refuses injunctive relief for alleged violations of WARN Act and COBRA
Article Abstract:
Local 217, Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union v MHM Inc was a suit by laid-off hotel employees that the Workers' Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act entitled them to two months of medical insurance and that the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) guaranteed them the chance to purchase continuation health coverage. The Second Circuit held that damages are the sole form of relief provided by the WARN Act and that the plaintiffs did not have much chance with a COBRA claim.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Defense cost reimbursement to insurers when lack of coverage is established after reservation of rights. Finding a threshold: when conflicts of interest warrant the duty to provide independent counsel
- Abstracts: Securities law - insider trading - Fourth Circuit rejects misappropriation theory of Rule 10b-5 fraud liability
- Abstracts: Products liability exposure: the sacrifice of American innovation. The Moorman doctrine and insurance broker liability law: does Bulk Services represent two worlds in collision?
- Abstracts: Retirement plan benefits: what are the spouse's options? Estate planning to avoid complications of remarriage
- Abstracts: Ads that compare are still up in the air under British trade marks act; two High Court decisions provide advertisers little guidance on use of rival marks in advertisements