Dive Brief:

• An article at aNewsCafe.com outlines the risks for retail and food service employers who may be trying to avoid the Affordable Care Act's healthcare benefits mandate by cutting worker hours below 30 per week.
• According to Margaret Beck, an insurance broker who wrote the article, a federal court in New York City has indicated that litigation aimed at employers who reduced employee hours specifically to avoid the ACA mandate can proceed. Media reports have confirmed that to be the case.
• As a result, Beck recommends that if a new hire is replacing a full-time employee, communicating the status at the time of hire is critical for a future defense. In other words, employers should document and clearly define any new variable hour, seasonal or part-time employee.

Dive Insight:

In the article, Beck offers a brief strategy for employers who may be vulnerable to litigation arising from the ACA, but adds that it's a complex process and employers need a "good payroll and HR software" to manage it properly.

Also, because it's tax time, her firm hears from employers who are confused about whether they must offer benefits based on the ACA mandate.  In one case, she writes, a tax professional told one caller/business owner that since she produced more than 50 W-2 forms in 2015, it could be an issue. But after Beck's firm checked into it, the business owner learned that her firm did not qualify as an "applicable large employer" under the ACA, so she was not required to offer benefits.

For small food and retail employers in particular, now is a good time to ensure they are in compliance with the ACA concerning the 30-hour rule and healthcare benefits.