U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle B— Regulatory Provisions › Part part 6— continuation coverage and additional standards for group health plans

29 U.S.C. § 1161

Plans must provide continuation coverage to certain individuals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

The plan sponsor of each group health plan shall provide, in accordance with this part, that each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage under the plan as a result of a qualifying event is entitled, under the plan, to elect, within the election period, continuation coverage under the plan.

(b) Exception for certain plans

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any group health plan for any calendar year if all employers maintaining such plan normally employed fewer than 20 employees on a typical business day during the preceding calendar year.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 601, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title X, § 10002(a), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 227; amended Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7862(c)(1)(B), 7891(a)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2432, 2445.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1989—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–239 struck out at end “Under regulations, rules similar to the rules of subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 of title 26 (relating to employers under common control) shall apply for purposes of this subsection.”

Pub. L. 101–239, § 7891(a)(1), substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “title 26” thus requiring no change in text.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by section 7862(c)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 101–239 applicable to years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, see section 7862(c)(1)(C) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 106 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Amendment by section 7891(a)(1) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7891(f) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–272, title X, § 10002(d), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 231, provided that:“(1)General rule.—The amendments made by this section [enacting this part and amending section 1132 of this title] shall apply to plan years beginning on or after July 1, 1986.“(2)Special rule for collective bargaining agreements.—In the case of a group health plan maintained pursuant to one or more collective bargaining agreements between employee representatives and one or more employers ratified before the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 7, 1986], the amendments made by this section shall not apply to plan years beginning before the later of—“(A) the date on which the last of the collective bargaining agreements relating to the plan terminates (determined without regard to any extension thereof agreed to after the date of the enactment of this Act), or“(B)January 1, 1987.For purposes of subparagraph (A), any plan amendment made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any requirement added by this section shall not be treated as a termination of such collective bargaining agreement.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 425 cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Silvia J. Thomas v. Chancey Miller & Elmwood Cemetery, 489 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Silvia J. Thomas v. Chancey Miller & Elmwood Cemetery, 489 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “Both parties agreed that Elmwood falls below the statute’s application threshold of twenty or more employees, which is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1161 (b). Thomas argued, however, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should bar the defendants from claiming that they fall below…”
Kwan v. The Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1161 (a), 1163(2). 3 The statute specifies that “the employer .”
Oreste Kidder & Thelma Kidder v. H & B Marine, Inc., 932 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 5× “Second, the court held that H & B Construction’s insurance plan did not fall within COBRA’s small-employer exemption, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1161 (b), which exempts companies that have fewer than twenty employees on a typical day during the preceding calendar year.”
Lawrence v. Jackson MacK Sales, Inc., 837 F. Supp. 771 (S.D. Miss. 1992). · cites it 5× “§ 1132 (e), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. § 1161 et seq., and damages relating to the failure to pay such benefits as were allegedly due, including statutory penalties for failure to provide notice of her COBRA rights.”
Van Hoove v. Mid-Am. Bldg. Maint., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 1523 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 8× “The plaintiff, Wanda Van Hoove, brought this action for alleged violations of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) amendments, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161 et seq., to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.”
Edith McCurry v. Kenco Logistic Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2019). “Kenco, not Mars, 3Referring to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161–1168. No. 18-3206 10 was McCurry’s employer, but an entity other than the actual employer may be considered a “joint employer” for purpos- es of § 1981 if it exercised…”
Joseph J. Simon v. Pfizer Inc., 398 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 1132 (a)(3) (Count III), and failure to provide timely and proper notice of COBRA benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161 , 1166 (Count IV). 4 Thereafter, on November 12, 2002, Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint based on the ESP’s mandatory arbitration…”
Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Hanna Steel Corp., 270 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “that each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage under the plan as a result of a qualifying event is entitled, under the plan, to elect, within the election period, continuation coverage under the plan.”
Chimarev v. TD Waterhouse Inv. Servs., Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 2× “; the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1161 et seq.; the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.”
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1161 , 1162. And in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), Pub.”
Rodriguez v. Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App'x 949 (6th Cir. 2004). “The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), codified in ERISA at 29 U.S.C. § 1161 etseq. . The Fund disputes that Rodriguez was eligible for coverage under the FMLA.”
Mimbs v. Com. Life Ins., 818 F. Supp. 1556 (S.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 4× “, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1161 ____” (PL’s State.Undisp.”
Show all 425 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 1161(b) — 1 case
Silvia Thomas v. Chancey Miller, 329 F. App'x 623 (6th Cir. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.