When an employer has 110 employees, and a group health plan, the employees’ care in the organization is influenced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Walsh, 2013) . The organization will not be required to enroll all full-time employees in the health plan automatically. The act requires only employers with 200 and above employees to do this. The act nevertheless requires that employers with at least 100 employees should establish an exchange. The exchange is meant for the under qualified health plans mainly for organizations with at least 100 employees. For such an organization to access the exchange program, they are required to provide a health benefits package to the employees (Walsh, 2013) . An employer with 110 employees falls under this category. It would be important for such plans to lose the grandfathers status in scenarios where the organization realizes that it has to increase its co-insurance. It may also be viable to lose the grandfather status if the organization cannot operate sustainably without increasing the fixed cost-sharing with the employees. In some organizations, the employees may opt to withdraw from the employee-employer shared health plan. When an organization fails to have at least one employee under such status, it would be important to alter the plan (Guerin, & Barreiro, 2016).
The main focus of this case is in the treatment of employees as being chaired or restated during the spun off. Based on the Maczko V. Ford motor company case 2008, it is evident that Ford did not do the right thing to treat the employees as rehired as opposed to reinstated. The organization later issued these employees with severance pay in 2008 (Walsh, 2013) . ERISA prohibits any form of discrimination against benefit plan participants. For instance, the employer is prohibited from preventing employees from accessing their benefits through firing. In this particular case, the organization formed a ground for the employees not to benefit from their benefit plans, something that can be considered as discriminative. The employee’s benefits were computed between 2006 and 2008 as opposed to computing them the period since such employees joined the organization in 2000. The entity should thus have treated the employees as being reinstated and not rehired (Walsh, 2013) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The focus of this section is on an employee whose services were terminated by an organization. While the employer sent the employees the letter regarding his COBRA rights, he did not receive the letter since every time the postal man delivered the letter to him, he was not in his house. The letter was eventually sent back to the post office sometimes later and when he presented himself to the post office the letter could not be traced. In Degruise v. Sprint Corp 2002, it is evident that the rights of the employees were violated even though the employee had not submitted the letter of acceptance to the organization within a period of 60 days (Walsh, 2013) . The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1986) commonly referred to as COBRA requires that when there is a qualifying event such as divorce or where a dependent child ceases to be qualified so, then the employee must communicate to the plan administrator of the qualifying event (Walsh, 2013) . COBRA requires that such letters be delivered in good faith. There was no indication of good faith when the organization delivered the letter via post office when other methods of delivery could have been adopted including the use of emails (Walsh, 2013) .
The focus of this case is on discrimination in employment. The case involves proving that a salary was not based on sex but rather that the pay was actually based on a legitimate legal course. In the case, Jane and John applied for a job in a construction company. The job involved lifting of heavy loads of material from the Lorries to the warehouse. In the assessment, Jane indicated her ability to match with other employees in execution of the task. As part of the screening, the job applicants were taken through assessment exercise where they were required to offload equal parts of materials from the same container (Walsh, 2013) . After the set one hour, Jane had only managed to offload of the load, yet all the other male employees including John had cleared the full loads. The employer opted to provide her with half the salary that of the male employees and she was asked to take that offer. She sued the employer of sex discrimination.
According to her the Anti-Discrimination Act requires that any form of discrimination whether sex or any other disseminative element should not be exhibited in recruitment exercise. At the same time, the Fair Works act calls for fair treatment of employees. Jane noted a case of discrimination. On the part of the organization, the attorney noted that employees selection is based on merit, Employees who bear same skills, and performs the same amount of work should be paid equally irrespective of gender (Guerin, & Barreiro, 2016). The attorney noted that Jane could not carry out the same level of work as John all the male employees. It was noted that there are some tasks where gender sensitivity is legal. For instance, it was noted that it is legal to only allow female security officers to do a full body search on males. It was held that the rights of Jane had not contravened as she lacked the same level of competence as the male employees in question. She could not execute the same level of tasks, especially carrying heavy loads at the same rate as her male counterparts and thus she deserved a better a lower pay (Walsh, 2013) .
