Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.

DaimlerChrysler May Have to Reimburse Women Employees for Out-of-Pocket Prescription Contraceptive Costs

Report Fraud
Case ID: 2684 | Insurance | 09/08/2004

A class action has been filed against DaimlerChrysler Corporation on behalf of female employees who allege that the company formerly discriminated against them by failing to include prescription contraceptives in its health plan coverage in violation of federal civil rights laws. The action asks the court to order the company to include contraceptives in its health plan and damages to repay the employees for the out-of-pocket expenses that they were forced to pay to buy contraceptives.

Though DaimlerChrysler stepped up its health coverage to include contraceptives a month after the filing of this action in June 2002, the court has ruled that the company may yet owe the employees for the expenses that they incurred prior to the change in the health plan.

Named plaintiff Diana Cooley, an employee at the Fenton, Missouri, plant, alleges that she was diagnosed with uterine bleeding and was prescribed DepoProvera around 1996. While the drug is a contraceptive, she needed it as part of her treatment for her condition. Because the company's health plan did not cover DepoProvera, she allegedly had to buy the drug herself at a price of $90 every three months until the company began to pay for it in mid-2002. In addition, she allegedly had to pay for her daughters' contraceptives.

The number of women who may be eligible to participate in the action could be 16,000 or more. This issue has been simmering in the auto industry, and others. After negotiating with the United Auto Workers on the subject, Ford Motor Company began providing its employees with coverage for prescription contraceptives in January 2000. In December 2000, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in the case of two nurses that a health plan that excluded contraception illegally discriminated against the women on the basis of their gender. The Commission has adopted that position as its policy on the issue. And in June 2001, a federal judge in Seattle ruled that the Bartell pharmacy chain discriminated against a female employee by failing to provide her with prescription contraceptives.


At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.

Other Insurance Cases of Interest

A Biloxi attorney and homeowners along the Gulf Coast area have filed a class action law suit against State Farm Insurance Company, alleging the company has refused to pay for hurricane damage to their homes, even though the plaintiffs purchased "all perils" homeowner insurance.
 
Every state requires insurance sellers to acquire a license prior to selling policies within its boundaries. The class has been certified in an action filed against Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Inc. and its parent company, ELRAC, Inc. on behalf of persons who rented a vehicle in New Jersey from the company between April 1, 1988, and March 11, 2003, and purchased supplemental liability protection, personal accident insurance, or collision damage waiver as part of the rental. Persons eligible to participate in this action do not need to take any action at the present time.
 
A class-action lawsuit involving more than 2,200 physicians will be allowed to proceed after a Jackson County judge denied three insurance companies' request for arbitration.
 
On 12/13/04, CIGNA HealthCare announced that it has reached a settlement in lawsuits brought on behalf of a nationwide class of specialty health care providers and certain state and national associations. The agreement must be approved by the United States District Court in Miami.
 
The parties have reached a tentative settlement apparently valued at more then $8.25 million in a class action filed against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company on behalf of all persons who purchased certain permanent, term life, and disability income policies issued by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, MML Bay State Life Insurance Company, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company or C.M. Life Insurance Company between January 1, 1983, and December 31, 2003. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement should call the settlement hotline for more information.
 
A class action has been filed against seven insurance companies on behalf of residents of Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, who held flood insurance policies and suffered damage to their houses in September 2003 from Hurricane Isabel. The action alleges that the companies violated their contracts by failing to deliver benefits promised to policyholders.
 
Become a LawCash Member - FREE!
'Find Money' E-Book
Weekly Email Alerts




privacy policy
YouNewz Beta
IT'S FREE

Report

Report Newz and easily upload your own newzworthy photos from your cell phone or computer to the web.

Share

Quickly share your photos with family, friends, co-workers, or the world with your own Newzpaper.

Read

Instantly find Newz and photos from other YouNewzers and read other YouNewzers Newzpapers.
 
Class Action Lawsuit Center || Product Recall Center || Consumer Complaint Center || About LawCash Link Exchange
Privacy Policy || Legal Policies || Terms & Conditions || Website Advertising Policy || Site Map || Top Lawsuits
LawCash® is a service of nola3, llc
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.

[ Home ]
LawCash
login
Justice is a click away.