Amazon to Reimburse Employees Who Travel for Abortion
“Amazon.com, the second-largest U.S. private employer, told its staff on Monday it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions,” Reuters reports.
https://politicalwire.com/2022/05/04/amazon-to-reimburse-emp…
from the comments:
-
It sure is cheaper to pay for an abortion than to pay for health insurance for a kid, especially if there’s a genetic defect. I can see a corporate bonus in the future where a self insured company or private health insurance company will tell an employee they will get free room and board, travel expenses and a $50,000 bonus if they abort a genetically deformed fetus. [[[note: lightly edited, mostly for ease of reading]]
-
A humane and laudable response to Roe, but the trend of corporations acting as a private government performing services that the government should provide as a public benefit only increases their power over time and raises its own set of concerns.
10 Likes
I wonder how long that will last. I expect that most of the states that are ready to bar abortions will also adopt laws that prohibit corporations from doing things like this.
We’ve already seen a few of them do it - while those provisions got characterized as trying to penalize an Uber driver that takes a woman to the clinic, they were likely aimed more directly at efforts like this: organized efforts to provide access to out-of-state abortion services.
From a macro perspective, this could pose some serious issues for companies that have to have a national workforce, and which have national benefits packages. We’ll likely see states adopt a host of measures that treat abortion as a crime - which is going to complicate private companies even from offering insurance coverage for abortion, much less a measure like AMZN’s.
Albaby
1 Like
Can states interfere with interstate commerce?
Well, maybe THIS SCOTUS thinks so…
1 Like
I wonder how long that will last. I expect that most of the states that are ready to bar abortions will also adopt laws that prohibit corporations from doing things like this.
On a related subject, I was wondering if a state can bar a resident from going to another state to get an abortion. Of course, the state would have to be aware of it somehow, but people could start reporting the travelling abortion seekers to the authorities.
We’ll likely see states adopt a host of measures that treat abortion as a crime - which is going to complicate private companies even from offering insurance coverage for abortion, much less a measure like AMZN’s.
No doubt, but a lot of states court large companies looking to expand or build facilities in their state. States that adopt more restrictive policies would find themselves removed from consideration by some companies.
I remember Pat McCrory, as governor of NC, unwisely waded in with his “bathroom bill” which cost NC some NCAA basketball tournament games, the NBA All-Star game, and several companies considering expanding into NC said they would look elsewhere because of it. Apparently even some folks who may have agreed with the intent were unhappy with the economic cost. So the state that supported DJT decided not to re-elect Republican McCrory and proceeded to elect a Democrat for governor.
2 Likes
Can states interfere with interstate commerce?
Not directly - the SCOTUS has long applied a “dormant commerce clause” theory that holds that only Congress has the right to directly regulate interstate commerce, and thus states can’t adopt regulations that discriminates against or directly burdens interstate commerce.
But this almost certainly wouldn’t fall under that prohibition. If abortion is a crime in a state, the state’s ordinary police power would almost certainly extend to criminalizing or prohibiting efforts to allow people to circumvent that criminal prohibition. Insurance regulation is overwhelmingly a matter of state law, and if a state wanted to prohibit insurance policies offered within its state from covering abortion services, it would likely not be considered a prohibited regulation of interstate commerce.
States cannot prohibit people from leaving the state (the right to interstate travel is protected). But they can regulate what people do within their state.
Albaby
2 Likes
We’ll likely see states adopt a host of measures that treat abortion as a crime…
But their jurisdiction ends at their state lines. So if I woman travels from AZ to CA (supposing that abortion will be illegal in AZ), gets an abortion, comes back, AZ doesn’t have any right to say anything. It didn’t occur in their jurisdiction. The feds handle interstate matters (commerce, etc).
1poorguy
But their jurisdiction ends at their state lines. So if I woman travels from AZ to CA (supposing that abortion will be illegal in AZ), gets an abortion, comes back, AZ doesn’t have any right to say anything. It didn’t occur in their jurisdiction. The feds handle interstate matters (commerce, etc).
Yes. But if Amazon pays for an employee in Arizona to travel from AZ to CA, then that’s arguably activity that does occur in their jurisdiction, at least in part.
For example, if Amazon offers an employee in Arizona an insurance or compensation package, that is (generally) a contract which is governed by Arizona state law, and is (generally) understood to have been entered into within the State of Arizona. Arizona has the right to regulate the terms of those contracts. So they can provide that it is illegal for an insurance or compensation contract subject to Arizona state law to provide for abortion coverage, or to reimburse employees for expenses incurred in procuring an abortion, or to offer such coverage as an inducement of employment.
Albaby
1 Like
But their jurisdiction ends at their state lines. So if I woman travels from AZ to CA (supposing that abortion will be illegal in AZ), gets an abortion, comes back, AZ doesn’t have any right to say anything. It didn’t occur in their jurisdiction. The feds handle interstate matters (commerce, etc).
That’s what I was thinking when I posted.
But if Amazon pays for an employee in Arizona to travel from AZ to CA, then that’s arguably activity that does occur in their jurisdiction, at least in part.
What if the AMZN home office (in WA) pays, or AMZN in the state in which the abortion occurs (CA)?
I’m expecting there to be a Pink Book (sort of like the Green Book?) for every state/city/county with a list of places where one can buy the pills for a medical abortion. After all, people seem to have little trouble acquiring weed, cocaine, heroin, etc.
1 Like
What if the AMZN home office (in WA) pays, or AMZN in the state in which the abortion occurs (CA)?
It will depend on how the Arizona state statute is drafted, of course; however, I don’t think that the physical location of the money will likely matter. They’ll probably regulate AMZN’s activities and agreements with the Arizona resident, not the payment to the abortion provider.
Most (if not all) insurance policies are issued at the state level - they’re basically contracts that are subject to the laws of the state. The same thing for employment contracts.
So if I were drafting for the state, I’d draft it so that no insurance company, carrier, or policy regulated by the state is permitted to cover abortion services, including transportation to another location for such services - and that no employer of more than X persons may enter into an employment contract or offer any compensation for such purposes.
For example, if Amazon offers an employee in Arizona an insurance or compensation package, that is (generally) a contract which is governed by Arizona state law, and is (generally) understood to have been entered into within the State of Arizona. Arizona has the right to regulate the terms of those contracts.
What if they write the contract under another state’s law? I know lots of corporations register in (I think) New Hampshire because it is advantageous to do so. So they could -for example- say their HQ is in one state, write contracts based on that, and have the person work “remotely” in Arizona.
People who WFH already are doing that.
1poorguy
Omit it from the employment contract and just do it??
I don’t have an employment contract. In fact, they take great pains to say I don’t have one whenever RSUs are issued (among other things). I’m not to infer I have a contract just because they granted me RSUs.
But with the new paradigm, it would be (I think) simple to say “John Doe works for us in L.A., but he’s physically in Scottsdale (or Silverton, or wherever)”. Lots of people work remotely now, often in completely different states (or even countries). I know a guy whose company was in OK City, but he lived in Glendale (AZ). He had to show up in OK a few times per year, but otherwise was completely remote.
1poorguy
What if they write the contract under another state’s law? I know lots of corporations register in (I think) New Hampshire because it is advantageous to do so. So they could -for example- say their HQ is in one state, write contracts based on that, and have the person work “remotely” in Arizona.
Those types of clauses (choice of law or “governing law” provisions) are a creature of contract. The two parties to the contract are mutually agreeing that they have decided that another state’s law will govern the terms of the contract. When construing the contract and what the contract means, a court will (generally) honor the party’s agreement.
But the state you’re forming the contract in doesn’t have to let you do that. If a state regulation takes away one or both parties’ ability to lawfully include something in a contract, the parties cannot of their own volition “agree” not to comply with that requirement. For example, if my state has a minimum wage of $10, I can’t get around that by writing out a contract with my cashier that says it will be governed by NH law instead of the law of my state. You only get to agree to the choice of law of another state to the extent that the state with jurisdiction over contract formation allows you to do that - and these types of laws will likely be written to criminalize the act of entering into such an agreement.
Albaby
1 Like
So what about remote work? An example: my company hired a guy who worked local, but then had to move to CA. He wasn’t hourly, but if he were would the hourly wage apply because he moved? If so, remote work people would be incentivized to move where the min wage is highest, or where benefit requirements were more generous.
He showed up a few times per year locally (company-paid). If you’re hired in one location, and work remotely from somewhere else, how would that work? I would think the point of hiring would control as long as the employee is “registered” (for lack of a better term) as an employee of that state.
1poorguy
So what about remote work? An example: my company hired a guy who worked local, but then had to move to CA. He wasn’t hourly, but if he were would the hourly wage apply because he moved? If so, remote work people would be incentivized to move where the min wage is highest, or where benefit requirements were more generous.
I don’t think that there are any state that require a person to be paid hourly rather than salary. But as for the other issues, I’m not a labor lawyer - so I don’t know for sure which state’s worker protection laws would apply if the employer is in one state and the worker is in another. However, I’m fairly confident that the answer wouldn’t be up to the parties to choose - contracts can bind the preferences of the parties, but they can’t trump whatever the ‘right’ answer is over which state’s law applies.
Albaby
1 Like
So if I were drafting for the state, I’d draft it so that no insurance company, carrier, or policy regulated by the state is permitted to cover abortion services
Amazon can monize $3,600 to an HSA that is based in California, Your State is not able to examine a medical procedure that you paid for in cash in another State.