Legal Question in Employment Law in California
My wife started working at her current employer about three years ago. It's a small office with about 10 employees.
They offer medical insurance, but pay only $150 towards the premium. At least that's the stated policy. In actuality, most employees have been getting about 50% paid towards their premium. Most as individuals, but for one employee the 50% includes the premium for her kids. Only my wife and one other employee have had only $150 contributed.
When my wife learned of the different treatment she asked her boss about it. The boss seemed a bit nervous or surprised (hard to be sure), asked my wife for the documentation and told her that he would get back to her. When he did, he said that the 50% was an error of which he was unaware and would be returning all employees to a $150 contribution.
The question is, is my wife entitled to restitution for the period where she was treated differently? If so, would that include the premium for me?
2 Answers from Attorneys
There is no law which says an employer must provide the exact same benefits to every employee. Just as an employer may pay employees different wage rates, they have the right to provide benefits at different rates, as well.
We do have laws which prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee because of a classification which is protected, such as race, gender, age (if over 40), disability, sexual orientation and several others. If the employer paid 50% of the premium to only male employees, for example, and applied the $150 policy only to female employees, your wife may have a legitimate claim.
The bigger problem she may have to face now is from her co-workers. If they find out they lost their 50% contribution to insurance because of her, things may get unpleasant.
I see no reason why your wife or you would be entitled to anything more. She received the amount promised in her contract. Mistakes made as to other employees do not change the contract. Also, employers do not necessarily need to provide the same benefits to everyone, and can provide differing benefits so long as it does not constitute unlawful discrimination.
The analysis is different if she can prove discrimination based on her gender, race, age or other suspect classification. Nothing in your answer suggests that is what happened -- though I do not exclude the possibility.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
