Health Plans Seek Supreme Court Review in ACA "Risk Corridors" Cases
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.12.19
On February 4, several health plans (including C&M client Maine Community Health Options) filed petitions for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the ACA “risk corridors” cases, which held that while the risk corridors program contained a mandatory payment obligation on the part of the Government, that payment obligation was temporarily suspended by appropriations riders that restricted HHS funds available to satisfy the obligation, even though the riders did not amend or repeal the statutory payment obligation and even though the health plans had already performed their own reciprocal obligations under the statute. The petitioners are seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion on several grounds, including (i) the restriction of funds to an agency via appropriations rider does not extinguish a statutory payment obligation of the United States, (ii) a rider that does not by its terms repeal or amend a money-mandating statute cannot impliedly and retroactively extinguish the Government’s payment obligation. The Maine petition is linked here.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
DOJ Promises NPAs to Certain Individuals Through New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Pilot Program
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.23.24
