Resource Library

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has created profound uncertainty for individuals and entities attempting to navigate a web of inconsistent and often conflicting federal and state laws. One key question is the impact of individual state laws on the provision of health-related services or benefits across state lines, particularly where state laws provide for criminal liability.

The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has presented many issues for sponsors of group health plans to contemplate as they decide whether and how to proceed with the offering and administration of abortion services. While each group health plan sponsor will need to consider its own objectives, plan populations and tolerance for risk,
this article provides a list which identifies factors that sponsors should address before taking any definitive action.

The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that job applicants are not entitled to compensation for time devoted to pre-employment drug tests because an employment relationship has not yet been formed. The Ninth Circuit held that the “control test” does not apply to job applicants, and that, under California contract law, the applicants had no contract for employment until they passed the pre-hire drug tests. Johnson v. WinCo Foods.

As various restrictions put in place during the global coronavirus pandemic have lifted across the world, many businesses have embraced hybrid working. However, as we look to the future, are these working arrangements of the so-called “new normal” really here to stay?

Implications of US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization for employers in the United States

Read about the Implications for in-house counsel of the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in a selection of resources.

Health care providers that provide a full spectrum of women’s health care services, including abortion, will need to understand how the Dobbs decision impacts the care they can provide to patients. Absent a federal protection of a patient’s ability to obtain an abortion, providers operating in this space will need to understand the scope of State laws that apply to abortion services.

Potential contract clause for serving alcohol at a company event.

In the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, employers with health plans that cover abortion services will have to determine whether or how to provide continued access to this relatively little-used benefit, especially in states that will automatically restrict abortion access now that the ruling has been issued, or that are expected to do so.

In light of recent state-level trends, businesses have begun exploring avenues to assist employees in states with restrictive abortion laws with travel to nearby states to receive abortion services. In implementing these programs, employers should consider the various ERISA and tax code-related provisions that may impact design.
T
his article was published by Seyfarth Shaw LLP on May 13, 2022.