Search form

DOL Issues Guidance on Intersection of Affordable Care Act and Federal Prevailing Wage Laws

By Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman and Jewell Lim Esposito
  • April 5, 2016

Long-awaited guidance to governmental agencies on how the Affordable Care Act’s provisions regarding employer shared responsibility interact with the fringe benefit requirements of the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA), Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Davis-Bacon Related Acts (DBRA) (together DBA/DBRA) finally has been issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor in an All Agency Memorandum 220 (AAM). SCA and DBA/DBRA require covered contractors to pay prevailing wages and fringe benefits to covered employees based on wage determinations issued by DOL. The AAM provides written guidance on the interplay between the ACA and these laws, including the critical issue of whether employers can take credit for ACA premiums and associated payment against required prevailing wage fringe benefits. The answer is “yes” for actual premium payments and “no” for excise tax payments made in lieu of offering and ACA compliant plan. This guidance is in line with the counseling and advice our benefits and prevailing wage attorneys have been providing on these issues based on our discussions with officials at DOL pending release of this written guidance.

SCA, DBA/DBRA, and ACA are Separate Laws

The AAM underscores that the SCA, DBA/DBRA, and ACA are separate federal laws and government contractors that are applicable large employers (ALEs) should be mindful that each law is independent. Thus, for example, just because an ALE satisfies SCA does not necessarily mean it satisfies ACA.

ACA Employer Shared Responsibility

In general, the ACA’s employer shared responsibility provisions require an employer with an average of at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) to provide its full-time employees (and their dependents) affordable health care offering minimum value. If the ALE to whom this applies chooses not to offer such health care, then it may make a non-deductible payment (by way of an excise tax) to the Internal Revenue Service.

Employer Contribution to Health — Appropriate Credit to SCA, DBA/DBRA Fringe

Under SCA and DBA/DBRA, an employer cannot take credit against the required prevailing wage benefits for those benefits required by federal, state, or local law (such as the federal obligation for an employer to contribute to Social Security). The AAM confirms that, because an ALE may offer ACA-compliant health care or, alternatively, may simply pay an excise tax to the IRS, the ACA does not require an employer to provide health care.

Consequently, WHD permits ALEs to credit contributions to a health plan towards SCA or DBA/DBRA fringe obligations. The DOL thus treats the ACA the same way it has treated Massachusetts’s medical care requirement, by allowing credit, and not like Hawaii’s mandated health care coverage, which DOL does not allow credit toward fringes (but under SCA, does provide a separate and lower health and welfare benefit rate).

Employer Payment of Excise Tax — Inappropriate Credit to SCA, DBA/DBRA Fringe Care

If an ALE decides alternatively to forego providing health care by paying the excise tax to the IRS instead, the employer cannot credit the payment of such tax towards SCA or DBA/DBRA fringe obligations. The AAM notes that such a payment does not confer benefits specifically on the workers and, therefore, is not a bona fide fringe benefit as that term is defined and interpreted under SCA and DBA/DBRA.

Choice of Providing Cash or Benefits Remains Employer’s

Government contractors’ employees often wrongly believe they should have the choice of receiving cash in lieu of benefits mandated by SCA or DBA/DBRA. The AAM reconfirms that whether to provide employees with benefits or cash in lieu is the ALE’s option (so long as not otherwise required under a collective bargaining agreement):

Thus, for example, if an ALE covered by SCA/DBRA chooses to provide all employees with fringe benefits in the form of health coverage, it may do so even if some or all of its employees might prefer to receive…cash…. [A] contractor need not obtain an employee’s concurrence before contributing the [entire fringe to health care].

Bear in mind, however, that an employee’s concurrence (and a writing authorizing deductions) is needed for any benefit the employer intends to provide that requires an employee payment or premium share that will be deducted from wages. For example, if the employer pays 100 percent of a medical plan benefit for an employee, then the employer simply can provide the benefit (and take credit under SCA/DBA/DBRA). On the other hand, if the employer pays only 80 percent of the medical plan benefit, then the employee must agree to the benefit and deduction of the employee portion of the benefit from wages.

***

Our attorneys regularly assist government contractors needing guidance on how to comply with each of the SCA, DBA/DBRA, and ACA laws (and how to coordinate the intersection of those independent federal laws).

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 16, 2017

Puerto Rico Labor Department Updates Regulations on Payment of Annual (Christmas) Bonus

November 16, 2017

Employers in Puerto Rico must comply with updated regulations on the payment of the generally required annual bonus to eligible employees. The Puerto Rico Department of Labor (DOL) updated the regulations, effective October 18, 2017, following legislation adopted early in the year. Under Puerto Rico Act No. 148 of 1969, employers in... Read More

October 26, 2017

Puerto Rico Agencies Issue Employee-Related Guidance, Tax Relief in Wake of Hurricane

October 26, 2017

The passage of Hurricane María through Puerto Rico in September 2017 left catastrophic damages. In an effort to encourage employer assistance and provide temporary economic relief to employees in Puerto Rico, local government agencies have issued the following measures and guidance related to employers concerning their employees.... Read More

September 7, 2017

Employee Benefits Newsletter – Summer/Fall 2017

September 7, 2017

In this issue: Proving Loss Causation in Breach of Fiduciary Claims – The Split Widens. Analysis of recent litigation trends involving loss causation, an important burden-of-proof issue in ERISA fiduciary claims. Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits in Mergers and Acquisitions. A summary of the most significant compensation... Read More