Search

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court announced an important change in how employers will be required to distinguish between independent consultants and employees, making it harder for workers to fit the criteria to be called an “independent contractor.”1 The court adopted a test similar to the “ABC” test used in Massachusetts, which has been considered the strictest in the country, pulling more and more workers out of the “contractor” bucket and into the “employee” bucket—a change that may affect companies’ bottom lines.

Directors and officers of companies face the possibility that even if they diligently discharge their duties to their stockholders their stockholders may still sue them.

In Rev. Proc. 2018-30, the IRS released the inflation adjusted amounts for 2019 relevant to HSAs and high deductible health plans (HDHPs). The ACA’s out-of-pocket limits for in-network essential health benefits have also been announced and have increased for 2019.

On April 23, 2018, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services released several pieces of guidance on issues arising under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), including 2017 enforcement actions, guidance on mental health parity implementation, and an action plan for enhanced enforcement in 2018.

Employers continue to face uncertainty as to wellness program incentives subject to the ADA and GINA (i.e., those with medical exams or disability-related inquiries) as the EEOC awaits confirmation of Janet Dhillon as EEOC Chair and considers “a number of policy choices available.” In other words, the EEOC may wait until the Senate confirms outstanding nominations before re-engaging in the rulemaking process, leaving wellness programs open to challenge in 2019 by employees who feel that the incentives (or penalties) are so great that they render the program involuntary.