Complaints seek maternity coverage for women on parents’ health insurance
Since September 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has permitted young adults to remain on their parents insurance plans until they turn 26.
June 05, 2013 at 07:46 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Since September 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has permitted young adults to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they turn 26. But for young women who are still on their parents' plans, coverage doesn't include maternity services. The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) claims that lack of coverage for dependents is discriminatory.
Yesterday, the NWLC filed sex discrimination complaints against five large, publicly funded institutions, claiming that by not providing maternity services to young women on their parents' plans, they are violating a provision of the PPACA that prohibits discrimination in health benefits on the basis of gender.
“Pregnancy coverage is an essential insurance benefit for women,” NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger said in a press release. “Our message to every institution providing health insurance in the country is that treating pregnancy differently, including by omitting it from health insurance coverage, is sex discrimination pure and simple and as such violates the law.”
The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employer-provided health insurance to cover maternity benefits for spouses. However, the law has never been interpreted to require that employer-provided health insurance also covers dependents.
The NWLC's complaints target Battelle Memorial Institute, Beacon Health System, Auburn University, Gonzaga University and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Read NPR for more about the sex discrimination complaints.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the PPACA, read:
Since September 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has permitted young adults to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they turn 26. But for young women who are still on their parents' plans, coverage doesn't include maternity services. The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) claims that lack of coverage for dependents is discriminatory.
Yesterday, the NWLC filed sex discrimination complaints against five large, publicly funded institutions, claiming that by not providing maternity services to young women on their parents' plans, they are violating a provision of the PPACA that prohibits discrimination in health benefits on the basis of gender.
“Pregnancy coverage is an essential insurance benefit for women,” NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger said in a press release. “Our message to every institution providing health insurance in the country is that treating pregnancy differently, including by omitting it from health insurance coverage, is sex discrimination pure and simple and as such violates the law.”
The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employer-provided health insurance to cover maternity benefits for spouses. However, the law has never been interpreted to require that employer-provided health insurance also covers dependents.
The NWLC's complaints target Battelle Memorial Institute, Beacon Health System, Auburn University, Gonzaga University and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Read NPR for more about the sex discrimination complaints.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the PPACA, read:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250