|
Evidence of Gross Misconduct in COBRA Liability Suit Warrants Trial
Failure to notify a terminated employee of his rights under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”) was just one of 15 separate employment-related claims brought by Adam Deutsch against his former employer, Kroll Associates, Inc. (Deutsch v. Kroll Associates, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___ (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).
Deutsch had asked the court to rule in his favor on the count in a summary judgment motion. The court declined to award him summary judgment on the issue, however, because of evidence provided by his employer that the termination had been for gross misconduct.
COBRA regulations permit an employer to deny COBRA benefits to an employee who has been terminated for gross misconduct. While COBRA regulations do not provide a definition of “gross misconduct”, in this case, the court found Kroll had presented sufficient evidence of behavior by Deutsch that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude constituted gross misconduct (including assaulting a co-worker and sending and receiving pornographic material from his office computer) that the issue could not be decided on summary judgment but must be resolved at trial.
Employers should note that since the regulations do not define gross misconduct, denial of COBRA rights to an ex-employee may very well be challenged in court. The employer should maintain and follow COBRA procedures, including maintaining an up-to-date COBRA Procedures Manual and COBRA Notices in order to insure COBRA compliance.
©2007 CobraAid
CobraAid is not engaged in the rendering of legal advice. This article should not be considered legal advice. The information contained in this article is subject to change and should be used for information purposes only. If legal advice is needed, seek competent counsel.
|
