Happy Halloween! Another Holiday Friday Afternoon Brings Us Another Obamacare Delay - HPID "Plan Identifier" Requirement Delayed

The Health Plan Identifier (HPID) is a unique 10-digit health plan identifier required by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) for certain group health plans.  Most employers with self-funded health plans were required to have obtained these numbers by November 5, 2014.  The HPID will be required for for HIPAA transactions such as medical and dental claims, claims payment and remittance, referrals and authorizations, benefit enrollment and premium payments.

Self-insured group health plans must obtain a HPID if they control their own business activities, actions or policies (e.g., selecting a TPA or health care platform), or are controlled by an entity that is not a health plan such as an employer. These plans are referred to as Controlling Health Plans ("CHPs"). Since most self-insured plans are controlled by their employer sponsors, most will be considered CHPs and the HPID requirement applies. Small self-insured plans have always been given an extra year to apply for the HPID.  "Small" means a self funded plan with claims paid, annually, of $5 million or less.  

Like every other governmental bureaucratization, the application process has been far more complicated than it should have been.  CMS's instructions were unclear.  Web pages and documents used varying language and marched employers through byzantine steps.  The process has been so bad that insurance brokerages and law firms had to hold webinars just to try and help employers obtain these government codes.  One client called us, rightfully frustrated, because in order for her to register her business, the website required her to input her personal social security number for "identity" purposes.  Sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?  

Well, the cacophony of complaints (along with an apparent recommendation that these numbers not be used at all by National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics) finally reached the appropriate crescendo.  And we have yet another Friday afternoon, holiday-weekend Obamacare delay.  

CMS has just announced that it is suspending enforcement of the HIPAA HPID requirements until further notice. The following statement is on the CMS website:

Statement of Enforcement Discretion regarding 45 CFR 162 Subpart E - Standard Unique Health Identifier for Health Plans 

Effective October 31, 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of e-Health Standards and Services (OESS), the division of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that is responsible for enforcement of compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) standard transactions, code sets, unique identifiers and operating rules, announces a delay, until further notice, in enforcement of 45 CFR 162, Subpart E, the regulations pertaining to health plan enumeration and use of the Health Plan Identifier (HPID) in HIPAA transactions adopted in the HPID final rule (CMS-0040-F).

This enforcement delay applies to all HIPAA covered entities, including healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses. 

On September 23, 2014, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), an advisory body to HHS, recommended that HHS rectify in rulemaking that all covered entities (health plans, healthcare providers and clearinghouses, and their business associates) not use the HPID in the HIPAA transactions (see http://ncvhs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/140923lt5.pdf). This enforcement discretion will allow HHS to review the NCVHS’s recommendation and consider any appropriate next steps.  

  

Clarification on “Offers of Coverage on Behalf of Another Entity” in PPACA (Temp Agencies or PEOs Offering Coverage on Your Behalf)

The challenges created by PEOs, staffing agencies and other similar employment arrangements have caused a great deal of confusion and consternation with respect to PPACA's Employer Mandate.  Minz Levin is one of the firm's that has done a very good job in continuing to address the matter and provide practical guidance.  Here is an excerpt of their latest:

... Recognizing the unique challenges posed by three-party employment arrangements, the preamble to the final regulations explains the problem and introduces the regulatory solution as follows (79 Fed. Reg. p. 8,566 (Feb. 12, 2014)): 

“[I]f certain conditions are met, an offer of coverage to an employee performing services for an employer that is a client of a professional employer organization or other staffing firm (in the typical case in which the professional employer organization or staffing firm is not the common law employer of the individual) . . . made by the staffing firm on behalf of the client employer under a plan established or maintained by the staffing firm, is treated as an offer of coverage made by the client employer for purposes of section 4980H. For this purpose, an offer of coverage is treated as made on behalf of a client employer only if the fee the client employer would pay to the staffing firm for an employee enrolled in health coverage under the plan is higher than the fee the client employer would pay to the staffing firm for the same employee if the employee did not enroll in health coverage under the plan. (Emphasis added). 

The rule itself appears in Treas. Reg. § 54.4980H-4(b)(2), and it provides, again in relevant part, as follows: 

For an offer of coverage to an employee performing services for an employer that is a client of a staffing firm, in cases in which the staffing firm is not the common law employer of the individual and the staffing firm makes an offer of coverage to the employee on behalf of the client employer under a plan established or maintained by the staffing firm, the offer is treated as made by the client employer for purposes of section 4980H only if the fee the client employer would pay to the staffing firm for an employee enrolled in health coverage under the plan is higher than the fee the client employer would pay the staffing firm for the same employee if that employee did not enroll in health coverage under the plan. (Emphasis added). 

Neither the preamble nor the final regulations explain the rationale for the requirement of an additional fee. The backstory has it that the Treasury Department and the IRS were worried about giving a common law employer who neither offered nor paid for coverage credit for Code § 4980H purposes for coverage provided by another entity. The rules governing offers of coverage by unrelated entities also apply to collectively bargained multiemployer plans, which too are offered by separate, unrelated legal entities but into which the common law employer makes contributions based on the terms of a bargaining or joiner agreement. There is, however, an important difference. While contributions to a multi-employer plan are set by the collective bargaining process, the final regulations offer no indication of what an appropriate additional fee might be in the context of a staffing firm or professional employer, or even how and when that fee must be assessed. ...

What is the proper amount of the additional fee? 

For the first few years following the Act, there arose a debate about the extent to which the costs of ACA compliance would be shifted to clients. Early on, clients appeared to resist the idea that they would need to shoulder these costs. But in the run up to 2015, when the employer shared responsibility rules take effect, there appears to have been a shift in attitude. Clients are generally willing to subsidize the costs of ACA compliance, but they are insisting that their staffing firms rein these costs in with smart compliance strategies, and they are demanding transparency in pricing. 

The additional fee requirement gives staffing firms a basis to pass through at least some of the costs of compliance. At one end of the spectrum, the additional fee could equal the substantiated cost of compliance. At the other end, the additional fee could be a nominal amount per hour (or some other period). But to date, no standard has emerged to tell us how much the additional fee ought to be. ...

Link to full post.  

  

After Most of Us Printed Our 2015 OE Materials, The IRS Changed 2015's Tax Benefit Limits

Wouldn't it be nice if our federal bureaucrats understood that most employers are nearly done with their 1/1/2015 benefits communications?  Well, they don't.  So a day late and dollar short, we have new statutory limits for 2015.  The Internal Revenue Service announced yesterday annual inflation adjustments for more than 40 tax provisions, including the tax rate schedules, and other tax changes. Revenue Procedure 2014-61 provides details about these annual adjustments.

The tax items for tax year 2015 of greatest interest to most taxpayers include the following dollar amounts -

• The tax rate of 39.6 percent affects singles whose income exceeds $413,200 ($464,850 for married taxpayers filing a joint return), up from $406,750 and $457,600, respectively. The other marginal rates – 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent – and the related income tax thresholds are described in the revenue procedure.
• The standard deduction rises to $6,300 for singles and married persons filing separate returns and $12,600 for married couples filing jointly, up from $6,200 and $12,400, respectively, for tax year 2014. The standard deduction for heads of household rises to $9,250, up from $9,100.
• The limitation for itemized deductions to be claimed on tax year 2015 returns of individuals begins with incomes of $258,250 or more ($309,900 for married couples filing jointly).
• The personal exemption for tax year 2015 rises to $4,000, up from the 2014 exemption of $3,950. However, the exemption is subject to a phase-out that begins with adjusted gross incomes of $258,250 ($309,900 for married couples filing jointly). It phases out completely at $380,750 ($432,400 for married couples filing jointly.)
• The Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amount for tax year 2015 is $53,600 ($83,400, for married couples filing jointly). The 2014 exemption amount was $52,800 ($82,100 for married couples filing jointly).
• The 2015 maximum Earned Income Credit amount is $6,242 for taxpayers filing jointly who have 3 or more qualifying children, up from a total of $6,143 for tax year 2014. The revenue procedure has a table providing maximum credit amounts for other categories, income thresholds and phaseouts.
• Estates of decedents who die during 2015 have a basic exclusion amount of $5,430,000, up from a total of $5,340,000 for estates of decedents who died in 2014.
• For 2015, the exclusion from tax on a gift to a spouse who is not a U.S. citizen is $147,000, up from $145,000 for 2014.
• For 2015, the foreign earned income exclusion breaks the six-figure mark, rising to $100,800, up from $99,200 for 2014.
• The annual exclusion for gifts remains at $14,000 for 2015.
• The annual dollar limit on employee contributions to employer-sponsored healthcare flexible spending arrangements (FSA) rises to $2,550, up $50 dollars from the amount for 2014.
• Under the small business health care tax credit, the maximum credit is phased out based on the employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees in excess of 10 and the employer’s average annual wages in excess of $25,800 for tax year 2015, up from $25,400 for 2014.  

Details on these inflation adjustments and others not listed in this release can be found in Revenue Procedure 2014-61, which will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2014-47 on Nov. 17, 2013. The pension limitations for 2015 were announced on Oct. 23, 2014.

  

25% of All Docs Opt Out of Obamacare (May Be As Many as 50% to 70% Opting Out in California)

• More than 214,000 doctors refuse to participate in the new plans under PPACA according to a new survey by Medical Group Management Association. 

• That is about 25% of the total number of 893,851 active physicians.  

• Back in January, as many as 70% of California physicians were estimated to be outside of the State's PPACA Exchange.  

Why don't physicians want to participate in Obamacare? Reimbursements are simply too low to be profitable - they are even lower than Medicare reimbursements, which are already significantly below market rates.

• It is estimated that where private plans pay $1 for a service, Medicare pays 80 cents, and 

• ACA exchange plans are now paying about 60 cents, a study by the think-tank American Action Forum finds. 

Additionally, doctors are concerned they may not be paid at all.

• 75% of ACA patients that had seen doctors had chosen plans with high deductibles. Given that most of the patients are low-income, doctors are concerned that the patients cannot meet the deductibles and they will get stuck with the bill. 

• HHS requires that insurers cover customers for an additional 90 days after they have stopped paying their premiums: 
• the insurer covers the first 30 - but, it's up to the doctor to recoup payment for the last 60 days. 
• Currently, about a million people have failed to pay their premiums and had their plans canceled.

Source: Barbara Boland at CNS News.
  

On Armstrong & Getty Today to Discuss California Shaming Employers with Minimum Wage Jobs and Obamacare's Broken Calculator

I spent the first half of the 8:00 AM hour today talking about a few stories we've covered here in recent days.

• Administration Signals Doubts About Calculator Permitting Plans Without Hospital Benefits, from Kaiser Health News

• Insurers and CMS Negotiate an Escape Clause Foreseeing the Possible Collapse Obamacare in 2015

• Nevada's Medicaid Expansion Has Led to Double the Enrollment and Two Month Wait Times in Reno

• California Elects to Publicly Shame Employers Who Create Low Wage, Entry Level Jobs with AB 1792

Here is the audio of my time on the show today:

For all Armstrong and Getty podcasts or to listen live visit here.  

   

In Retirement a Couple Needs Between $147,000 & $326,000 in Savings to Pay for Out of Pocket Medical Expenses

• Medicare beneficiaries can expect to pay a share of their costs out of pocket because of program deductibles and other cost sharing. 
• In 2011, Medicare covered 62 percent of the cost of health care services for Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older. 
• Out-of-pocket spending accounted for 13 percent, and private insurance covered 15 percent.  

• In 2014, a man would need $64,000 in savings and a woman would need $83,000 if each had a goal of having a 50 percent chance of having enough money saved to cover health care expenses in retirement. 
• If either instead wanted a 90 percent chance of having enough savings, $116,000 would be needed for a man and $131,000 would be needed for a woman.

• For a married couple both with drug expenses at the 90th percentile throughout retirement who wanted a 90 percent chance of having enough money saved for health care expenses in retirement by age 65, needed savings are $326,000 in 2014.

  Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute. 

  

Stories Causing Atlas to Shrug (and Maybe Giving Him Some Hope), October 28, 2014 Employment Law Edition

Shrugging:

• We have our first case of documented 'internet addiction' and that might be an Americans With Disabilities Act covered disability.  

• After your company settles that Americans with Disabilities Act claim with an employee, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can still come after you and administer penalties.  

Optimism Alive:  

• Being a jerk is not an Americans With Disabilities Act qualified disability (yet).  

• If a manager shows favoritism to a love interest, friend or family member, it is not discrimination, unless widespread and based on a quality such as gender, race, etc.

Nevada's Medicaid Expansion Has Led to Double the Enrollment and Two Month Wait Times in Reno

The USA Today and Kaiser Health News published a thorough column on how the Obamacare Medicaid expansion has impacted healthcare in Reno and the rest of the state.  Nevada is one of the 26 states (like California) that expanded Medicaid up to 138% of the federal poverty level. 

• That doubled enrollment in Reno and its surrounding county from 50,000 to 90,000 people. 

• Medicaid enrollment statewide grew from 330,000 people in September 2013 to more than 601,000 in August 2014. 

• Now it can take two months to get a doctor’s appointment at a local community health center, or an all-day wait if you just show up. 

• In the article, new Meidicaid recipient Carolyn Oatman said: “I love it on Medicaid because now I can go the emergency room when I need to and don’t have to worry about the bill.”  Her only income is her husband’s $1,200 monthly disability check.

• To entice more providers, the health law increased Medicaid pay for primary care doctors in 2013 and 2014 to the same levels paid by Medicare. 
• In Nevada, that has meant a nearly 30 percent pay hike. 
• But federal money is scheduled to run out at year’s end.

• Andrew Pasternak, a family physician who works in a more upscale part of Reno, says he likely will stop seeing new Medicaid patients in January if the payments drop. 
• “It’s a huge worry,” he said, noting his reimbursement will go from $75 for a basic office visit to about $44. 
•  His practice now sees 400 Medicaid enrollees, up from 20 the previous year.

Source: Kaiser Health News and the USA Today.  

  

California's Prop 45 (Insurer Rate Regulation in Healthcare) Is So Bureaucratic, It Even Scares Obamacare Supporters

This is from Steven Greenhut, writing at Reason:

... Under [the] system [set forth by Proposition 45], intervenors are paid to challenge rate changes proposed by insurance companies, in a process that can take many months to resolve. Obamacare supporters are rightly concerned that if Proposition 45 passes, it will bollix up the fledgling health exchange's ability to negotiate rates. 

Polls last month put the proposition ahead, but with support falling. This black eye for Covered California has reignited interest in the race....

The real battle, as the Los Angeles Times' Jon Healy explained recently, is between Covered California supporters who claim the new exchange is lowering premiums, and Proposition 45 supporters who claim that "insurers are gouging their customers" so Californians need more protection. ...

Nobel-winning economist George Stigler wrote about "regulatory capture," in which regulated industries often exert excessive influence in the agencies that regulate them. 

It certainly applies here, but it seems ironic for Consumer Watchdog to complain about cozy relationships between the insurance industry and the new insurance exchange given its cozy relationship with the current commissioner, Dave Jones. It seems easier for interest groups to control one official rather than an entire insurance exchange. "I don't buy that — not when that official is accountable to the voters every four years," Court told me. I'm skeptical that voters offer enough of a check. 

No-bid contracts [another Covered California fiasco] are problematic, but a bigger problem may be the lack of a truly competitive insurance market in California's highly regulated and politicized insurance industry. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but consider what will happen if California voters add to this convoluted system yet another set of regulations and yet another level of power to one official.

 

California Elects to Publicly Shame Employers Who Create Low Wage, Entry Level Jobs with AB 1792

Compliance with California's minimum wage laws won't keep the state from publicly humiliating employers with lower wage working populations. 

Assembly Bill 1792 takes effect on January 1, 2015 and requires employers with 100 or more employees enrolled in California's Medi-Cal program to disclose data to the State for purposes of determining the total average cost of State and federally funded public assistance benefits provided. The data will then be posted on the State Department of Finance's website for what might be called, in today's pop vernacular, low wage shaming.

While stigmatizing the creation of entry-level work, Utopi-Fornia's new law simultaneously seeks to remove any scintilla of a possibility that a person who is receiving taxpayer-funded handouts could be identified as such.  AB 1792 prohibits an employer from disclosing to any person or entity that an employee receives or is applying for public benefits and prohibits an employer from making any employment decision on a recipient's choice to take the government's handouts.  By belittling employers who offer low-wage positions while further seeking to remove all possibility of shame, stigma or identification for a person who receives such benefits, California ensures that the state will have less entry-level work and more welfare recipients.

I suppose that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Two years ago we leaned:

One in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the government is pushing to enroll more — in many instances working to overcome Americans’ “pride,” self-reliance or failure to see a need. 

“Our common goal is to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” the United States Department of Agriculture explains on its “Outreach Toolkits” page. “Our purpose is to ensure that those going through difficult times can feed their families healthy, nutritious food. By working as a team, we can accomplish these goals.”

The erosion of American "pride" is apparently not enough.  The new message is clear. If you offer low-wage, entry-level employment that might cause a portion of your employees living in high-cost areas like the San Francisco bay area, San Diego or Los Angeles to receive welfare benefits, California's ruling class wants to denigrate you.  You are not welcome here.  So you, like Elon Musk and Tesla, might as well take your employment to a state that doesn't despise you.

Perhaps that was the goal all along.  Just last week Presidential frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, explained to a crowd that businesses don't create jobs, anyway.

I suppose that half of those who remain in California can get government jobs while the other half lives on welfare.  When it collapses and burns the federal government will bail it out anyway.  But we'd better hurry because if Illinois beats us to statewide bankruptcy and bailout, I'm not sure that the country will have the appetite for a second.

Here is how Littler Mendelson summarizes the new law:

An unusual law seeking to spotlight the allegedly inadequate compensation practices of larger employers has been created in what some call “the public shaming act.” The new law requires, until January 1, 2020, that various state agencies compile data to determine the total average cost of state and federally funded public assistance benefits provided to each identified employer's employees ("beneficiaries"). The data is then provided to the State Department of Finance annually to transmit to the Legislature and post on the Department's Internet Web site a report summarizing, for each subject employer, the cost to governments of the assistance provided to each company’s beneficiaries. The new law defines an employer as an individual or organization that employs 100 or more beneficiaries of the Medi-Cal program. The new law prohibits an employer from disclosing to any person or entity that an employee receives or is applying for public benefits, unless authorized by state or federal law. (AB 1792; repeals and amends Government Code section 13084, amends Unemployment Insurance Code section 1095, and adds and repeals Welfare and Institutions Code section 11026.5.) 

  

Employer Litigation Scorecard Underscores the Risk of Operating a Business in California

I regularly see plenty of anecdotal evidence of California's hostility toward business. Oppressive legislation, mind-numbing bureaucracies, and hyper-aggressive litigants and judges dominate our employment landscape.  But seldom do I see such a great quantification of just how dangerous our state is for an employer.  The good folks over at LawRoom quantified it over the last three months.

See a recurring theme in that jurisdiction column?

The following graphs and statistics highlight selected employment law claims throughout
the United States that went to trial or settled between July and September 2014.

TYPE OF CLAIM Discrimination & Harassment (total)	EMPLOYEE WINS 45%	MEDIAN  WIN $152,500	CASES REPORTED 71
Age Discrimination	17%	$900,000	6
Disability Discrimination	44%	$105,000	25
Race/National Origin Discrimination	50%	$1,100,000	12
Religion Discrimination	33%	$507,913	3
Sex Discrimination	54%	$40,000	13
Sexual Harassment	50%	$127,500	12
Pay & Overtime	76%	$1,673,969	42
Retaliation & Whistle-blowers	41%	$100,000	22
Overall Statistics (All Categories)	54%	$475,000	136

AGE DISCRIMINATION	RESULT	AMOUNT	JURISDICTION
EEOC v. DSW (Designer Shoe Warehouse)	Settlement	900,000	Illinois
Johns v. Lew (IRS)	Bench	Defense	California
Kebriaiy v. Union Bank	Bench	Defense	California
Doe v. The Boeing Company	Bench	Defense	California
Dunn v. Trustees of Boston College	Bench	Defense	Massachusetts
Delaney v. Bank of America	Bench	Defense	New York

PAY & OVERTIME	RESULT	AMOUNT	JURISDICTION
Gravina v. City of Los Angeles	Settlement	26,000,000	California
Wilson v. Walgreen	Settlement	23,000,000	California
Wallace v. Countrywide Home Loans	Settlement	10,500,000	California
Shephard v. Lowe's	Settlement	6,500,000	California
US DOJ v. LinkedIn	Settlement	5,855,841	California
Prizler v. AT&T Mobility Services	Settlement	5,000,000	California
Gonzalez v. Universal Alloy	Settlement	4,750,000	California
US DOJ v. Shell Oil	Settlement	4,470,764	Texas
Vaca v. Tin (Temple-Inland), Int'l Paper	Settlement	2,875,000	California
De La Torre v. Johnson Controls	Settlement	2,800,000	California
Maraventano v. Nordstrom	Settlement	2,700,000	California
Silvestro v. NLP	Bench	2,192,000	California
Rangel v. Fedex Ground Package System	Settlement	2,100,000	California
Alejandro v. Air Express International	Settlement	1,750,000	California
Cruz v. Sky Chefs	Settlement	1,750,000	California
Connolly v. Weight Watchers	Settlement	1,687,500	California
US DOJ v. B & D Contracting	Settlement	1,660,438	Louisiana
Bell v. Delta Air Lines	Settlement	1,415,444	California
Thio v. Genji	Settlement	1,250,000	California
Mansfield v. Southwest Airlines	Settlement	1,000,000	California
Christensen v. Hillyard	Settlement	750,000	California
Banos v. Mohammedi (Southland Construction)	Settlement	648,929	California
Harris (US DOL) v. Rama Food Mfg	Settlement	195,400	California
Harris (US DOL) v. Interior Magic of CA	Settlement	180,521	California
Perez (US DOL) v. Demko (Fashion Graphics)	Settlement	171,000	California
Cappuccio v. Pepperdine University	Verdict	120,000	California
Perez (US DOL) v. Alkanan	Settlement	77,000	California
Green v. Lawrence Service Company	Bench	60,000	California
Alam v. Hawks International Security	Bench	56,581	California
Heredia v. Fu-Gen	Verdict	21,015	California
Williamson v. Geisler (GS Entertainment)	Settlement	18,450	California
Villa-Estrada v. Priority Building Services	Settlement	17,500	California
Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank	Bench	Defense	California
Rau v. Mission Ranch Primary Care	Bench	Defense	California
Shahmerzaian v. Acad. for Salon Professionals	Bench	Defense	California
Lopez v. Lucky Chances	Bench	Defense	California
Rhea v. General Atomics	Bench	Defense	California
Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Electric	Bench	Defense	California
Mireles v. Paragon Systems	Bench	Defense	California
Debham v. FedEx Home Delivery	Bench	Defense	Massachusetts

RETALIATION	RESULT	AMOUNT	JURISDICTION
Hager v. County of Los Angeles	Verdict	2,500,000	California
Avila v. Los Angeles Police Department	Verdict	629,400	California
Bedford v. City of Los Angeles	Settlement	500,000	California
Stone v. County of Lassen	Settlement	350,000	California
EEOC v. Goodwill Industries	Settlement	100,000	Oklahoma
Montana v. City of Oakland	Settlement	96,000	California
EEOC v. Bertolini	Settlement	92,500	Tennessee
EEOC v. Turner Machine Company	Settlement	80,000	Tennessee
EEOC v. Cardiac Science	Settlement	50,000	Wisconsin
Peter-Palican v. Gov't of N. Mariana Islands	Bench	Defense	CNMI
Nielsen v. AECOM Technology	Bench	Defense	New York
Cox v. Onondaga County Sheriff's Department	Bench	Defense	New York
Nielsen v. AECOM Technology	Bench	Defense	New York
Liu v. Siemens	Bench	Defense	New York
University of Houston v. Casey	Bench	Defense	Texas
Price v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission	Bench	Defense	Texas
Brewer v. College of the Mainland	Bench	Defense	Texas
Valdez v. Recon Services	Bench	Defense	Texas
Claxton v. County of Orange	Verdict	Defense	California
Thulin v. Gateway Unified School District	Verdict	Defense	California
Munson v. Splice Communications	Verdict	Defense	California
Alldridge v. Behavioral Health Services	Verdict	Defense	California

SEX DISCRIMINATION	RESULT	AMOUNT	JURISDICTION
Kuwahara v. Asahi Gakuen	Verdict	1,300,000	California
US DOJ v. Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co.	Settlement	475,000	Oklahoma
EEOC v. Royal Tire	Settlement	182,500	Minnesota
EEOC v. V&B (Merry Maids)	Settlement	40,000	Wisconsin
EEOC v. Triple T Foods	Settlement	30,000	Arkansas
EEOC v. Kevin & J Company	Settlement	15,000	Tennessee
EEOC v. Lee's Food (Food Rite)	Settlement	10,500	Virginia
Fromson v. Georgia Pacific	Bench	Defense	California
Knitter v. Corvias Military Living	Bench	Defense	Kansas
EEOC v. Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J.	Bench	Defense	New York
Clark v. Cache Valley Electric	Bench	Defense	Utah
Vallin v. ESP Computer Services	Verdict	Defense	California
Daniels v. State of CA Dept. of Corrections	Verdict	Defense	California

SEXUAL HARASSMENT	RESULT	AMOUNT	JURISDICTION
Davies v. Kiewit Pacific Company	Settlement	1,000,001	California
Andrade v. PF Chang's Bistro	Settlement	931,200	California
EEOC v. JEC Enterprises (McDonald's)	Settlement	200,000	New Mexico
EEOC v. Superior Electric	Settlement	55,000	Wyoming
EEOC v. CSK Auto (O'Reilly Auto Parts)	Settlement	35,000	Illinois
EEOC v. Sal's Mexican Restaurant	Settlement	15,000	California
Klein v. Walt Disney	Bench	Defense	California
Patterson v. Domino's Pizza	Bench	Defense	California
Muhammad v. Caterpillar	Bench	Defense	Illinois
Brewer v. College of the Mainland	Bench	Defense	Texas
Wherry v. Award (Century 21 Award)	Verdict	Defense	California
Sweet v. Russell Construction	Verdict	Defense	California

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION	RESULT	AMOUNT	JURISDICTION
Atkins v. City of Los Angeles	Verdict	12,304,368	California
Jordan v. City of Long Beach	Verdict	1,168,165	California
Ko v. Square Group (The Square Supermarket)	Verdict	723,646	California
EEOC v. Walgreen	Settlement	180,000	California
Izaguirre v. Int'l Coffee & Tea (The Coffee Bean)	Verdict	125,000	California
Lacy v. San Francisco Zoological Society	Settlement	105,000	California
EEOC v. Genesis HealthCare	Settlement	75,000	New Jersey
EEOC v. MPW Industrial Services	Settlement	37,500	Pennsylvania
EEOC v. SunBridge Regency-North Carolina	Settlement	35,000	North Carolina
EEOC v. Famous Chicken (Popeye's)	Settlement	25,000	Texas
EEOC v. RockTenn (Smurfit-Stone)	Settlement	20,000	South Carolina
Mendoza v. Roman Catholic Archibishop of LA	Bench	Defense	California
De La Cruz v. El Pollo Loco	Bench	Defense	California
Rollins v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino	Bench	Defense	California
Ramirez v. Reeve-Woods Eye Center	Bench	Defense	California
Shamir v. SCCA (Saks Fifth Avenue)	Bench	Defense	California
Smith v. Time Warner Cable	Bench	Defense	California
Ortiz v. Board of Education	Bench	Defense	Illinois
Vazquez-Rivera v. Figueroa	Bench	Defense	Puerto Rico
Collazo-Rosado v. University of Puerto Rico	Bench	Defense	Puerto Rico
Martins v. Rhode Island Hospital	Bench	Defense	Rhode Island
Young v. Service Employee Intl. Union Local 1000	Settlement	Defense	California
Martinez v. TJS Enterprises	Verdict	Defense	California
McKnight v. City of Santa Monica	Verdict	Defense	California
Kao v. The University of San Francisco	Verdict	Defense	California

Source: LawRoom.com, gated.