Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which abolished the constitutional right to an abortion, Google has informed its U.S. employees that they will be permitted to move to another state without having to justify it.
However, other businesses that intend to assist employees in crossing state boundaries to endure terminations risk the anger of politicians who have threatened to pass laws to prevent or at the very least impede such offers of support.
The company’s benefits plan and health insurance, according to Fiona Cicconi, the HR chief, would cover “out-of-state medical treatments that are not accessible where an employee lives and works.”
She also noted that workers can ‘apply for relocation without justification, and those overseeing this process with be aware of the situation.’
‘This is a profound change for the country that deeply affects so many of us, especially women. Please be mindful of what your co-workers may be feeling and, as always, treat each other with respect,’ Cicconi wrote.
After Roe v. Wade was reversed, Google informed its American employees that they would be free to relocate to another state.
The majority of the company’s employees are based in California, a state that protects abortion rights. The CEO of Google-owned YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, tweeted on Friday.
There are 29 Google offices nationwide, including ones in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Wisconsin, four states where abortion is already prohibited or where such legislation may soon be passed.
The majority of the company’s employees are based in California, a state that protects abortion rights.
‘As a CEO I recognize there are a spectrum of opinions on the SCOTUS ruling today. As a woman, it’s a devastating setback. I personally believe every woman should have a choice about how and when to become a mother. Reproductive rights are human rights,’ Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of Google-owned YouTube tweeted.
It is anticipated that abortion rights would be restricted in almost half of all US states.
As a result of Friday’s decision, abortion restrictions that were already in place in 13 states took effect, and during the next 30 days, at least a dozen other Republican-led states are anticipated to outlaw abortion.
Many businesses have made public commitments to support women’s growth and equality at work.
The Mississippi statute that forbids abortion beyond 15 weeks was maintained by the court in its ruling, which was influenced by its conservative majority. Some Democratic-led states are taking action to increase access to abortions in the meantime.
Numerous additional media and tech firms, including Meta, Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Disney, Comcast, Warner Bros. Discovery, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase, and Condé Nast, have stated that they will cover their employees’ travel costs if they must leave their home state in order to access reproductive healthcare services.
On Friday, businesses such as Cigna, a health insurance provider, PayPal, Alaska Airlines, and Dick’s Sporting Goods also disclosed their reimbursement procedures.
Numerous large corporations, such as McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Tyson, and Marriott, did not make any such announcements.
Arkansas-based The largest employer in the country, Walmart, which has several of its locations in areas where abortion is illegal as a result of Friday’s Supreme Court decision, remained silent as well.
However, according to legal experts, these new regulations may subject corporations to legal action and even potential criminal culpability.
If businesses adopt policies that encourage employees getting abortions, they will have to navigate the patchwork of state laws and risk angering anti-abortion organizations and Republican-led states.
Companies that offer to pay for travel costs may become a target for politicians who oppose abortion.
Texas state senators have previously threatened legal action against Citigroup and Lyft, which had just unveiled trip reimbursement programs.
Republican Texas state representative Briscoe Cain wrote Citigroup a cease-and-desist letter stating that he will introduce legislation prohibiting local governments in the state from doing business with any corporation that offers travel expenses for staff members seeking abortions.
In a letter sent to Lyft CEO Logan Green last month, a group of Republican senators threatened the ride-hailing business that if it adopted the policy, Texas “would take immediate and decisive action.”
The lawmakers also provided a list of measures pertaining to abortion, such as one that would prohibit businesses from operating in Texas if they paid for Texans to get abortions overseas.
According to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and specialist in healthcare law, it is likely only a matter of time before businesses encounter lawsuits from states or anti-abortion activists asserting that payments related to abortions violate state prohibitions on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions.
Wilson responded, “You can sue Amazon for paying for it if you can sue me as a person for bringing your kid across state borders.”
According to some attorneys and other legal experts, the federal legislation governing employee benefits will offer essential protection in civil litigation over major firms’ self-funded health plans.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits states from adopting requirements that ‘relate to’ employer-sponsored health plans. Courts have for decades interpreted that language to bar state laws that dictate what health plans can and cannot cover.
ERISA regulates benefit plans that are funded directly by employers, known as self-insured plans. In 2021, 64% of U.S. workers with employer-sponsored health insurance were covered by self-insured plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Any company sued over an abortion travel reimbursement requirement will likely cite ERISA as a defense, according to Katy Johnson, senior counsel for health policy at the American Benefits Council, a trade group. And that will be a strong argument, she said, particularly for businesses with general reimbursement policies for necessary medical-related travel rather than those that single out abortion.
Johnson said reimbursements for other kinds of medical-related travel, such as visits to hospitals designated ‘centers of excellence,’ are already common even though policies related to abortion are still relatively rare.
‘While this may seem new, it’s not in the general sense and the law already tells us how to handle it,’ Johnson said.
The argument has its limits. Fully-insured health plans, in which employers purchase coverage through a commercial insurer, cover about one-third of workers with insurance and are regulated by state law and not ERISA.
Most small and medium-sized U.S. businesses have fully-insured plans and could not argue that ERISA prevents states from limiting abortion coverage.
And, ERISA cannot prevent states from enforcing criminal laws, such as those in several states that make it a crime to aid and abet abortion, so employers who adopt reimbursement policies are vulnerable to criminal charges from state and local prosecutors.
But since most criminal abortion laws have not been enforced in decades, since Roe was decided, it is unclear whether officials would attempt to prosecute companies, according to Danita Merlau, a Chicago-based lawyer who advises companies on benefits issues.