Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Human resources and labor relations

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Human resources and labor relations

COBRA takes effect

Article Abstract:

COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, requires employers to extend health insurance coverage to terminated employees and their dependents at group rates enjoyed by current employees for up to 18 months following termination. However, such continuation elections can be accompanied by employee payments of as much as 102 percent of the premiums paid by nonterminated group plan members. The employee will, in most cases, be allowed 60 days from the date of normal termination of coverage within which to decide whether to make the continuation election. As part of COBRA's passage, certain amendments had to be made to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code; among these revisions is the ability of courts to assess penalties at the rate of $100 per day to plan administrators who fail to issue required plan notices.

Author: Murphy, Betty Southard, Hatch, D. Diane, Barlow, Wayne E.
Publisher: Crain Communications, Inc.
Publication Name: Personnel Journal
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 0031-5745
Year: 1987
United States, Health insurance, Employee benefits

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Pre-employment test invades privacy and discriminates

Article Abstract:

California Court of Appeal has ruled Dayton Hudson Corp's use of 'Psychscreen' in screening job applicants to be unlawful. 'Psychscreen' is a psychological test consisting of true or false questions taken from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the California Psychological Inventory. The test contains some questions pertaining to the religious attitudes and sexual orientation of applicants, which the court found to be unrelated to the job and irrelevant to the psychological health of applicants. The court of appeal concluded that Dayton Hudson violated the California Labor Code and the state's constitutional right to privacy.

Author: Murphy, Betty Southard, Hatch, D. Diane, Barlow, Wayne E.
Publisher: Crain Communications, Inc.
Publication Name: Personnel Journal
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 0031-5745
Year: 1992
Department stores, Courts, Usage, Cases, California, Privacy, Right of, Right of privacy, Target Stores Inc., Employment discrimination, Psychological tests, Employment tests, California. Court of Appeal

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA



Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: OSHA issues final rule on bloodborne pathogens. 'Comparable worth' claims rejected. Age-based discrimination: economic and seniority factors
  • Abstracts: HRIS survival tactics. Emphasize the human in HRIS. Piecemeal planning hinders HRIS performance
  • Abstracts: Rules for management communication. How managers create monsters. Two-sided performance reviews
  • Abstracts: Beyond belief: a benchmark for human resources. Higher knowledge for higher aspirants. Human resource competencies: an empirical assessment
  • Abstracts: Expatriates in their own home: a new twist in the human resource management strategies of Japanese MNCs. Transferability of Japanese human resource management abroad
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.