Holford v. Exhibit Design Consultants
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
218 F. Supp. 2d 901 (2002)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Exhibit Design Consultants (Exhibit) (defendant), a small design firm, terminated the employment of Lisa Holford (plaintiff) and failed to provide her with written notice of her right to continue health coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Exhibit improperly relied on its employee handbook as sufficient notice, and Holford filed suit against Exhibit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Holford filed suit against Exhibit for failing to provide proper notice of her option to continue coverage in violation of COBRA, an amendment to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Holford sought actual damages to cover unpaid medical expenses, the maximum daily statutory penalty available for the time since the date of her termination, and attorney’s fees. Holford claimed that during the coverage gap, she opted out of some medical procedures due to finances and that her husband was forced to deplete his retirement fund to cover medical expenses. Exhibit admitted to giving inadequate written notice but objected to Holford’s proposed relief and offered to retroactively insure the COBRA medical expenses. The court assessed the requested relief.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Enslen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.