Follow Us
Join our newsletter
Get the latest news delivered to your inbox.
Employers See Increasing Numbers of Lawsuits Over Deficient COBRA Notices
June 22, 2022
Employers are seeing an increase in lawsuits from former employees alleging deficient Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) election notices, with statutory penalties of up $110 per person per day. These lawsuits are generally class actions and can result in significant attorneys’ fee awards for successful ex-employees. The fact employers are struggling to comply with COBRA notice requirements means employers should brace for increased election notice litigation.
Why Has COBRA Notice Litigation Increased?
Employers’ difficulty in complying with election notice requirements plus lucrative class action lawsuits seem to be causing the increase in litigation. Even though COBRA violations tend to be incidental to other employment litigation—meaning most individuals filing claims would not have elected COBRA—they can result in hefty penalties and attorneys’ fees awards for successful ex-employees.
The recent barrage of COBRA notice lawsuits claims employers’ COBRA election notices are inaccurate, confusing or threatening. Lawsuits have targeted COBRA notices that fail to include:
- The mailing address for payments
- The plan administrator’s identity
- An explanation of how to enroll
- The actual election form to elect coverage
The costs of class actions are hefty. Some examples of COBRA notice litigation occurring earlier this year include lawsuits against Home Depot, Fiat Chrysler and Costco. These companies settled their lawsuits for $815,000, $600,000 and $750,000, respectively.
Why Are Employers Struggling With COBRA Notice Requirements?
In 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) revised its model COBRA election notice. While employers can simply use the DOL’s model COBRA notice, many do not rely on it because most use third-party vendors to provide notices to their former employees.
These third-party vendors typically provide their own notices that do not strictly adhere to the DOL’s model notice. For instance, vendors often omit the plan administrator’s name to avoid confusion—as former employees mail COBRA coverage payments to the vendor, not the plan administrator. Additionally, not all information required by the DOL’s model notice is known to employers at the time they must provide notice, so vendors omit it. Even though vendors prepare and send most notices, COBRA notice litigation is directed at the employer or plan sponsor, not the vendors.
“The DOL is ‘keeping an eye’ on the need for additional COBRA guidance, but other issues have taken priority.”
- Elizabeth Schumacher, deputy director of the DOL’s Division of Regulations and Standards
What this means
While ensuring compliance is always challenging, recent developments—such as the DOL’s revised model notice and the IRS and DOL extending COBRA deadlines and providing additional guidance following the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021—have made it harder for employers. Consequently, COBRA notice litigation is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
While the recent rise in COBRA notice litigation has targeted mainly large employers, all employers should consider reviewing their COBRA notices to ensure compliance, identify potential liabilities and avoid litigation. Even technical violations that do not result in actual harm to former employees—since they rarely elect COBRA—can expose employers to expensive litigation because of statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees.
Contact SimcoHR for more COBRA compliance resources.
Sign up for our newsletter.
Overview of the New Ruling New York employers are once again required to provide a notice in their employee handbooks about reproductive health rights following a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The ruling vacated a previous permanent injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the law, meaning employers must now comply with the New York Reproductive Health Bias Law (Labor Law § 203-e). Reproductive Health Bias Law Requirements The Reproductive Health Bias Law was enacted in November 2019 to ensure employees and their dependents can make reproductive health decisions without facing discrimination in the workplace. The law prohibits employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees regarding their reproductive health decisions and requires employers to keep employees' reproductive health information confidential unless there is prior written consent. Under the law, employers must include a notice in their employee handbooks informing employees of their rights and remedies under the Act. This is an essential update that must be made to comply with the law. Impact of the Second Circuit Ruling Religious organizations had challenged the law, arguing that the notice requirement violated their First Amendment rights. However, the Second Circuit disagreed, ruling that the notice requirement was lawful and similar to other workplace disclosure laws. The court noted that while the policy motivating the law may be controversial, the law itself and the obligation for employers to comply are not in question. Action Required for Employers Even though there is no specific penalty for failing to comply with the notice requirement, employers are encouraged to review and update their employee handbooks in light of the court's ruling to ensure they are compliant with the law. For Simco Clients: For clients who utilize Simco’s employee handbook services, rest assured this requirement is already included, and no additional steps are needed.
Pre-employment drug testing is a hiring practice that has sparked debate in recent years. While some industries rely on it for safety and compliance, others are rethinking its necessity—especially as marijuana laws evolve. If you're actively job searching, knowing what to expect can help you prepare, avoid surprises, and understand your rights. Who Still Requires Drug Testing? Not all industries conduct pre-employment drug testing, but for certain roles, it's still a non-negotiable requirement. Some of the most common sectors where testing remains standard include: Transportation & Public Safety – Truck drivers, pilots, transit operators, and law enforcement Healthcare & Childcare – Nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and daycare providers Government & Military Contracts – Federal employees, military personnel, and defense contractors Manufacturing & Construction – Heavy equipment operators and industrial workers handling hazardous materials However, policies vary widely even within these industries. Some companies are now loosening restrictions for non-safety-sensitive positions, recognizing that outdated drug testing policies may limit their talent pool. What Substances Are Typically Screened? Most pre-employment drug tests screen for common illicit substances, but the depth of testing can vary. Standard screenings include: Five-Panel Test – Detects marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP Expanded Panel Tests – Can include benzodiazepines, barbiturates, synthetic opioids, and even alcohol Employers may use different types of tests, including urine, saliva, blood, or hair follicle analysis. Hair follicle testing, for example, can detect drug use from months prior—something applicants should be mindful of. The Evolving Landscape of Marijuana Testing One of the most significant changes in pre-employment drug testing involves marijuana. With over half of U.S. states legalizing marijuana in some form, companies are reevaluating their stance. Some states prohibit employers from disqualifying candidates for off-duty marijuana use. Other states still allow testing but require employers to prove impairment, not just presence. Federally regulated positions, such as those in transportation, maintain strict no-tolerance policies. This shift means that while some applicants may no longer face automatic disqualification for marijuana use, it’s still important to know an employer’s policy before assuming it won’t impact hiring decisions. What Happens If You Fail a Pre-Employment Drug Test? The consequences of failing a drug test depend on multiple factors, including company policy, industry regulations, and state laws. In regulated industries (e.g., transportation, healthcare, federal employment), a failed test almost always results in immediate disqualification. Some employers allow re-testing or a waiting period before reapplying, particularly for marijuana use in certain states. If you have a valid prescription for a tested substance (e.g., opioids or ADHD medication), you may need to provide documentation to avoid disqualification. Additionally, some companies offer assistance programs or second-chance policies, especially if an applicant is upfront about past use or addiction recovery. Do Employers Really Benefit from Drug Testing? With the workforce evolving, many companies are questioning whether traditional drug testing policies still serve their intended purpose. Some argue that testing reduces liability, improves workplace safety, and ensures reliable employees. However, others believe that outdated policies exclude qualified candidates, especially in a competitive job market. The Arguments for Drug Testing: Reduces workplace accidents in safety-sensitive roles Ensures compliance with federal and industry regulations Discourages drug use in high-responsibility positions The Arguments Against Drug Testing: May eliminate qualified candidates for non-safety-sensitive roles Does not account for impairment vs. past use (especially with marijuana) Can be costly and time-consuming for employers Companies that still require drug testing must weigh these factors and ensure their policies align with modern workforce expectations. The Future of Pre-Employment Drug Testing The debate over drug testing isn’t going away anytime soon. As laws and attitudes continue shifting, companies may move toward impairment-based testing rather than zero-tolerance screening. This means job seekers should stay informed, especially in industries where testing is likely to remain a requirement. For now, the best approach is to understand employer expectations, know your legal protections, and be prepared for potential screenings as part of the hiring process.
Workplace Posting for Form 300A Begins February 1 Employers with 11 or more employees at any point in 2024 must display the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, from February 1 to April 30. Even if no recordable incidents occurred in 2024, this posting is mandatory. The form must be certified by a company executive and displayed prominently in each workplace where employee notices are typically posted. Certain businesses are exempt from OSHA’s regular recordkeeping requirements, including this posting, if they employ 10 or fewer people or if their primary business activity is considered low hazard according to OSHA's guidelines. A full list of low-hazard industries, categorized by NAICS codes, is available here . However, even exempt companies must report fatalities or incidents resulting in hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye. Electronic Submission of Form 300A Due by March 2 Businesses with 250 or more employees from the previous year, or those with 20-249 employees in high-risk industries, must submit their Form 300A data electronically through OSHA's Injury Tracking Application (ITA) by March 2, 2025. This requirement applies based on the number of employees at a specific location, not the entire company. Employers under State Plans are also required to submit electronically. Exemptions from this electronic submission apply to employers who: Are exempt from OSHA's regular recordkeeping rules. Had fewer than 20 employees in the past year. Had between 20 and 249 employees but aren’t in the designated high-risk industries. Additional resources, FAQs, and access to the ITA are available on OSHA’s ITA page . Submission of Forms 300 and 301 Required by March 2 Employers in high-hazard industries with 100 or more employees are required to submit data from both their Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) through the ITA, in addition to their Form 300A submission. Help with Coverage Determination Employers can use OSHA’s ITA Coverage Application to assess whether they need to submit injury and illness data electronically or refer to the State Plan for specific reporting requirements.
Have a question? Get in touch.
Our Services.
From the Blog.
Overview of the New Ruling New York employers are once again required to provide a notice in their employee handbooks about reproductive health rights following a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The ruling vacated a previous permanent injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the law, meaning employers must now comply with the New York Reproductive Health Bias Law (Labor Law § 203-e). Reproductive Health Bias Law Requirements The Reproductive Health Bias Law was enacted in November 2019 to ensure employees and their dependents can make reproductive health decisions without facing discrimination in the workplace. The law prohibits employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees regarding their reproductive health decisions and requires employers to keep employees' reproductive health information confidential unless there is prior written consent. Under the law, employers must include a notice in their employee handbooks informing employees of their rights and remedies under the Act. This is an essential update that must be made to comply with the law. Impact of the Second Circuit Ruling Religious organizations had challenged the law, arguing that the notice requirement violated their First Amendment rights. However, the Second Circuit disagreed, ruling that the notice requirement was lawful and similar to other workplace disclosure laws. The court noted that while the policy motivating the law may be controversial, the law itself and the obligation for employers to comply are not in question. Action Required for Employers Even though there is no specific penalty for failing to comply with the notice requirement, employers are encouraged to review and update their employee handbooks in light of the court's ruling to ensure they are compliant with the law. For Simco Clients: For clients who utilize Simco’s employee handbook services, rest assured this requirement is already included, and no additional steps are needed.
Pre-employment drug testing is a hiring practice that has sparked debate in recent years. While some industries rely on it for safety and compliance, others are rethinking its necessity—especially as marijuana laws evolve. If you're actively job searching, knowing what to expect can help you prepare, avoid surprises, and understand your rights. Who Still Requires Drug Testing? Not all industries conduct pre-employment drug testing, but for certain roles, it's still a non-negotiable requirement. Some of the most common sectors where testing remains standard include: Transportation & Public Safety – Truck drivers, pilots, transit operators, and law enforcement Healthcare & Childcare – Nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and daycare providers Government & Military Contracts – Federal employees, military personnel, and defense contractors Manufacturing & Construction – Heavy equipment operators and industrial workers handling hazardous materials However, policies vary widely even within these industries. Some companies are now loosening restrictions for non-safety-sensitive positions, recognizing that outdated drug testing policies may limit their talent pool. What Substances Are Typically Screened? Most pre-employment drug tests screen for common illicit substances, but the depth of testing can vary. Standard screenings include: Five-Panel Test – Detects marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP Expanded Panel Tests – Can include benzodiazepines, barbiturates, synthetic opioids, and even alcohol Employers may use different types of tests, including urine, saliva, blood, or hair follicle analysis. Hair follicle testing, for example, can detect drug use from months prior—something applicants should be mindful of. The Evolving Landscape of Marijuana Testing One of the most significant changes in pre-employment drug testing involves marijuana. With over half of U.S. states legalizing marijuana in some form, companies are reevaluating their stance. Some states prohibit employers from disqualifying candidates for off-duty marijuana use. Other states still allow testing but require employers to prove impairment, not just presence. Federally regulated positions, such as those in transportation, maintain strict no-tolerance policies. This shift means that while some applicants may no longer face automatic disqualification for marijuana use, it’s still important to know an employer’s policy before assuming it won’t impact hiring decisions. What Happens If You Fail a Pre-Employment Drug Test? The consequences of failing a drug test depend on multiple factors, including company policy, industry regulations, and state laws. In regulated industries (e.g., transportation, healthcare, federal employment), a failed test almost always results in immediate disqualification. Some employers allow re-testing or a waiting period before reapplying, particularly for marijuana use in certain states. If you have a valid prescription for a tested substance (e.g., opioids or ADHD medication), you may need to provide documentation to avoid disqualification. Additionally, some companies offer assistance programs or second-chance policies, especially if an applicant is upfront about past use or addiction recovery. Do Employers Really Benefit from Drug Testing? With the workforce evolving, many companies are questioning whether traditional drug testing policies still serve their intended purpose. Some argue that testing reduces liability, improves workplace safety, and ensures reliable employees. However, others believe that outdated policies exclude qualified candidates, especially in a competitive job market. The Arguments for Drug Testing: Reduces workplace accidents in safety-sensitive roles Ensures compliance with federal and industry regulations Discourages drug use in high-responsibility positions The Arguments Against Drug Testing: May eliminate qualified candidates for non-safety-sensitive roles Does not account for impairment vs. past use (especially with marijuana) Can be costly and time-consuming for employers Companies that still require drug testing must weigh these factors and ensure their policies align with modern workforce expectations. The Future of Pre-Employment Drug Testing The debate over drug testing isn’t going away anytime soon. As laws and attitudes continue shifting, companies may move toward impairment-based testing rather than zero-tolerance screening. This means job seekers should stay informed, especially in industries where testing is likely to remain a requirement. For now, the best approach is to understand employer expectations, know your legal protections, and be prepared for potential screenings as part of the hiring process.
Our Company.
Sign up for our Newsletter.
Designed and Developed by Vessel Digital Marketing