BILL ANALYSIS AB 1814 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 6, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 1814 (Buchanan) - As Introduced: February 11, 2010 PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended) SUBJECT : AGE DISCRIMINATION: RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS KEY ISSUE : SHOULD STATE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW BE CLARIFIED TO MAKE IT UNMISTAKABLY CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW THAT EMPLOYERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR PROVIDING RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS THAT ARE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED WHEN RETIREES BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE HEALTH BENEFITS? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. SYNOPSIS This non-controversial bill clarifies state age discrimination law regarding the provision of health benefits to retirees. It would make state law expressly consistent with federal law that the state prohibition against age discrimination in employment does not prohibit an employer from providing health benefits or health care reimbursement plans to retired persons that are altered, reduced, or eliminated when the person becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits. SUMMARY : Clarifies state age discrimination law regarding the provision of health benefits to retirees. Specifically, this bill provides that the age discrimination prohibitions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act do not prohibit an employer from providing health benefits or health care reimbursement plans to retired persons that are altered, reduced, or eliminated when the person becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits. EXISTING LAW : 1)Under state law, generally prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of age with respect to persons aged 40 years and older. (Government Code section 12940.) 2)Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, likewise generally prohibits discrimination in employment on AB 1814 Page 2 the basis of age with respect to persons aged 40 years and older. (29 U.S.C. section 621 et seq.) 3)Under federal law, exempts from the prohibition against age discrimination the provision of health benefits for retired participants that are altered, reduced or eliminated when the participant is eligible for Medicare health benefits whether or not the participant actually enrolls in the other benefit program. (29 C.F.R. section 1625.32.) COMMENTS : In support of the bill the author states: "Thousands of California employers, both public and private sector, provide some type of continued medical benefits for certain qualified employee who retire before they are eligible to receive Medicare. These are so-called 'bridge plans.' In 2007 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enacted a regulation that specifically permits these "bridge plans" by exempting them from the prohibition of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This bill, would clarify that these bridge plans would also be permitted under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)." According to the author, the bill responds to litigation commenced in 2009 against the Acalanes Union High School District and the Acalanes Education Association by a retiree who left her employment after she was eligible for Medicare. The employer and employee organization had reportedly negotiated a collective bargaining agreement nearly 20 years ago that provides retiree health benefits to certain qualified employees who retired after the age of age 55. Those benefits were to be paid to the retiree up to a specified monthly amount for up to five years or to age 65, when the retiree would be eligible for Medicare. This plaintiff in that case was apparently denied the contractual benefit because she retired after she was eligible for Medicare and the benefit was intended to be a bridge to Medicare. She initiated a law suit against both the school district employer and the employee organization claiming age discrimination. The District subsequently filed a cross complaint for declaratory relief against the employee organization and twenty-four retirees, threatening to recoup benefits already paid to those retirees and to cease paying future benefits if the collective bargaining agreement that provided the retiree health benefits was found to be illegal. The author argues that if this type of litigation proliferates under the FEHA, California employers will be discouraged from AB 1814 Page 3 offering these modest retiree health benefits, which currently enable employees to be covered by medical insurance should they choose to retire before they are Medicare eligible. As the author indicates, this bill is intended to make state law consistent with federal law with respect to age discrimination regarding specified employee benefit plans covered by federal retirement law. It would exempt employers from liability for age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act when and to the extent they are exempt from comparable liability under regulations adopted pursuant to federal law. Like federal law, the bill applies only to retiree benefits; differential treatment of medical benefits for current employees raises much different policy issues, and the law in that area would not be changed. Author's proposed amendments . In order to better capture the intent of the measure, the author appropriately proposes the following amendments: (B) The provisions of this part relating to discrimination on account of age shalldoesnot prohibit an employer from providing health benefits or health care reimbursement plans to retired persons that are altered, reduced, or eliminated when the person becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits. This subparagraphis declaratory of existing law andapplies to all retiree health benefit plans and contractual provisions or practices concerning retiree health benefits and reimbursement plans in effect on January 1, 2011.the effective date of the statute that enacted this subparagraph.REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Teachers Association (sponsor) League of California Cities Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334