Legal Question in Health Care Law in California

My employer, a school district, denies certain benefit privileges based on the person to whom I'm married. If I'm married to a person not in the district who has benefits, my children can be covered by my spouse's AND my coverage; my spouse and I can both cover each other. If, however, I am married to another teacher/employee of the district, they now deny us both the opportunity to cover our children and each other. It strikes me that my benefits package should not be limited because of the person to whom I'm married. This is a new policy implemented this year to 'save costs on health care'. Is this legal?


Asked on 10/15/10, 3:29 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

I think you either misunderstand the limitations on your coverage or have not explained it correctly. You seem to be saying that if your spouse did not work for the district, either or both of you could cover the kids, but because you both work for the district neither of you can cover the kids. I just can't imagine that is correct. As for the double coverage, whether you work for one employer or two different employers, they are free to require that you not duplicate coverage. It is a total waste of the employer's contribution to be paying for two polices that cover the same thing. And why would you want to pay the employee contribution for two policies that cover the same thing? It makes total sense and is completely legal for an employer to require employees who have access to two health plans, or two polices on one plan, to elect one to cover the entire family.

Read more
Answered on 10/20/10, 3:50 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Health Care Law questions and answers in California