Supreme Court Holds Health Care Law Constitutional

Yesterday marked the conclusion, not only to the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term, but to the heated debate regarding the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a/k/a “Obamacare”.  In deciding the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's four liberals to uphold President Barack Obama's health plan’s individual mandate requiring citizens to carry insurance or pay a penalty.  By a 5-4 vote, the court held that the mandate was valid under Congress' constitutional authority "to lay and collect Taxes" to provide for "the general Welfare of the United States."  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government.

The Court held one part of the law unconstitutional, deciding that the act’s expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program threatened states' existing funding.  The Court ruled that the federal government cannot put sanctions on states' existing Medicaid funding if the states decline to go along with the Medicaid expansion.

The four justices voting against the Constitutionality of the health care plan, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, stated in their dissent that they would have struck down the entire law, arguing that neither the government's commerce nor taxing power justified the mandate.  They opined that by reinterpreting the insurance mandate and changing the Medicaid provision, the majority engaged in “vast judicial overreaching" and decided “to save a statute Congress did not write.”

DUI License Suspension Rule Changes

As of January 1, 2012, Connecticut has instituted new penalties for individuals convicted for a first offense of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  Under the new rules, individuals convicted for their first DUI offense will have their license suspended for 45 days, provided they install an Ignition InterlockDevice (IID) in their car for one year.  An IID is a device installed in the motor vehicle that measures the blood alcohol content of the driver and prevents the engine from starting if the blood alcohol content of the driver is more than .025 percent. 

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is applying the new suspension rules based on the date of conviction, not the date of conduct.  Therefore, anyone convicted after January 1, 2012 will have the new penalty provision applied against them, whether or not the DUI incident occurred before January 1^st.  Previously, there was a mandatory one year license suspension for first time DUI convictions.  The DMV is allowing drivers with a one year suspension under the previous penalty provisions to opt into the 45 day suspension period, provided they install an IID for one year.   

New Home Ownership Incentive Program Offers Grants to Purchase Homes in Hartford

Five Hartford corporations have begun offering grantassistance to their employees for use in purchasing single, two- or three family homes or condominiums. The grants are part of a Home Ownership IncentiveProgram created by MetroHartford as part of its LiveHartford initiative, a plan to promote city living and transform the surrounding area to benefit both the companies and employees. Modeled after similar programs developed by Yale University and MassMutual Financial Group, the Home Ownership Incentive Program allows companies to award grants to eligible employees on a first come, first serve basis to buy a home in Hartford. Although the grants will be forgiven over a five year period, if the employees quit their jobs or sell their homes before that time period has expired they will be required to pay the amount that is still outstanding.

So far five Hartford corporations have signed on including Aetna, Hartford Hospital, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and Trinity College, but program leaders are hopeful more will follow. While each corporation currently participating has agreed to award five $10,000 grants, small and medium sized business are also encouraged to participate and may offer grants of any amount. Aetna began accepting applications in March and has already chosen one participant for a grant. The other corporations expect to begin their programs soon.

Connecticut Employers May be Liable if They Fail to Prevent Anti-Homosexual Workplace Harassment

Under Connecticut law governing employment discrimination, an employer may be liable to an individual or employee if it "refuse[s] to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment any individual or to discriminate against him in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s sexual orientation or civil union status." C.G.S. § 46a-81c (1).  The question recently posed to the Connecticut Supreme Court in Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Co., was whether the mandate that an employer must not discriminate regarding “terms [or] conditions” of employment made an employer liable if it failed to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from workplace harassment/a hostile work environment due to the employee’s sexual orientation.

In reaching its decision, reportedly one of the first state supreme court decisions tackling this issue, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded it did not matter that the law does not expressly make an employer liable for failing to prevent workplace harassment or remedy hostile work environments targeting an individual because of their sexual orientation.  Rather, the Connecticut Supreme Court, after examining the statute, related state and federal laws and case law, concluded that the phrase “terms, conditions or privileges of employment,” which already is used in many laws to employees from discrimination due to race or gender, has become a special phrase that covers employees facing workplace harassment or a hostile work environment due to protected qualities, such as race or gender. Therefore, because the state legislature used this phrase in the statute making an employer liable for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the legislature meant to protect employees from – and make an employer liable for – unremedied workplace harassment or hostile work environments.

Questions or Comments? Contact Jared Cantor.

How to Deal with Denial of Long Term Disability Benefits

When appealing a denial of long-term disability benefits, it is important to act fast to develop the information to rebut the reasons the insurer gave to deny the claim.  The relevant period for determining disability is the “elimination period,” which is usually the 180 days after you become disabled.  If you wait too long to do the testing you need for your appeal, the insurer can disregarding the information on grounds that while it may show that you are disabled at the time of the testing, it does not show that you were disabled during the elimination period.    This was demonstrated in the case of Kellyv. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147133 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2011), where the court disregarded the claimant’s cardiac condition in determining if he was disabled because he first received treatment for the condition after the elimination period, even though the condition contributed to his disability during the elimination period.  The case illustrates why it is important to talk to an attorney early in the appeal process so we can develop a comprehensive and timely plan to maximize your chance to get disability benefits.  Other information on appealing disability benefit denials under ERISA and for private plans is on the Employment Law section of our website. 

BPS Attorney To Participate in 3-Day Komen Breast Cancer Walk

This year Attorney Bridget Gallagher, a partner at Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP, will be participating in the Susan G. Komen 3-Day walk in Boston.  She and her six other team members will walk a total of 60 miles over the course of three days in order to raise money to help support breast cancer research.  These 3-day walks are annual events and this year will be held fourteen major cities around the country.  Each participant is required to raise $2,300.00 in order to participate in the walk.  The events often draw as many as two thousand participants in each city, resulting in an extraordinary contribution to the fight against breast cancer.  Attorney Gallagher and her team members will walk on July 27, 28 and 29.

Attorney Gallagher will be joined by her dearest college friends, all of whom have participated in an annual girls weekend trip since they graduated in 1991.  This year their usually carefree girls weekend will be replaced by this fundraising event, a big commitment for each of these ladies, all of whom have young children at home.  With the support of their families and friends they will collectively help to raise a significant sum to help support breast cancer research.  The group was inspired to participate in the walk due to the recent diagnosis of their friend and team captain, Beth, mother of four young children, who underwent a double mastectomy this year.  Thankfully she is doing well and they have all been humbled by her enduring strength and positive attitude.

If you wish to help support Attorney Gallagher’s fundraising efforts please click on her home page in order to make a donation, and thank you. (http://www.the3day.org/site/TR/2012/BostonEvent2012?px=6487585&pg=personal&fr_id=1751)

Sunday Liquor Sales: Full Steam Ahead

On Monday May 14, 2012 Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act 12-17 making Sunday liquor sales legal in the state of Connecticut. Even with the new law, some towns still prohibit the sale of alcohol entirely, and some still ban the sale of liquor on Sundays. Bridgewateris the last “dry” town in Connecticut, and though it is not dry, no alcohol is sold in the town of Easton. Wilton, Connecticut has a town ordinanceprohibiting liquor sales on Sunday, and the town law trumps the new state law. Sunday sales will start this Sunday, May 20, 2012 for stores in those towns that haven’t banned Sunday sales. Individual store owners will decide whether to stay open on Sundays or not.