kflorian-ga,
Thanks for asking quite an interesting question.
I'm not a lawyer, and Google Answers is not a substitute for
professional legal advice. However, I've researched your question
carefully, and feel confident about the information I can offer
regarding your two questions:
>>In the state of Illinois, is tuition reimbursement considered a
legal "benefit" that must be offered to all employees of a
corporation?<<
No.
As you can see from this policy statement for Illinois state
employees, tuition reimbursement is NOT a guaranteed benefit:
-----
http://www.legis.state.il.us/commission/jcar/admincode/080/080003030F03900R.html
Tuition reimbursement is intended to serve as a management tool for
the development of employees and for the attainment of agency goals.
It should be administered as a mechanism through which mutual
advantages are gained by both the employee and the State. Tuition
reimbursement is not an unconditional or unilateral employee right or
benefit.
-----
Although this language is aimed at state employees, there is nothing I
could see in the state's laws suggesting that private companies have
different or more stringent rules that apply to them regarding tuition
reimbursement programs.
>>What structures or circumstances must be true such that tuition
reimbursement need only be offered to selected employees?<<
From my non-lawyerly understanding of things, here's what I believe to be the case.
Employers are not obligated to offer tuition reimbursement at all. If
they choose to offer it, they can certainly make it available to all
employees, and this is frequently the case. But again, they are not
obligated to do so.
During my search of tuition reimbusement programs in Illinois, it was
clear that some tuition reimbursement programs are offered only to
select groups of employees such as:
Administrators and Supervisors only:
http://www3.dist214.k12.il.us/admin_depts/staffsupport/SupportProfGrowth/tipadmin.htm
Full-time employees only:
www.icc.state.il.us/hr/docs/benefits.pdf
Professionals only:
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/hr/policy-man/sec7a/7a-5a.htm
The only real requirements employers face is that tuition
reimbursement programs must be administered fairly, just as is the
case with other job benefits. "Fairly", in this case, means in
accordance with laws aimed at preventing job discrimination.
Just as salaries, bonuses, advancement and other job opportunities
must be administered without discrimination, so must tuition
reimbursements. This does not mean that EVERYONE at the workplace is
entitled (to a raise, bonus, reimbursement, etc). But it does mean
that the choice of who does or does not get these things cannot be
based on discriminatory factors such as race, gender, disability,
ethnicity, etc.
There are a number of cases in Illinois state files, where employees
have charged that they were being discriminated against by being
denied tuition reimbursements.
For instance:
==========
http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2004/Apr_04/Tarr,%20L.htm
Complainant filed a charge of discrimination with the Department on
August 12, 2002, alleging that Respondent paid him unequal wages
(Counts A and B); subjected him to unequal terms and conditions of
employment (by denying him tuition reimbursement) (Counts C and D);
subjected him to unequal terms and conditions of employment (by making
him share an office) (Counts E and F); and discharged him (Counts G
and H) based on his race, black, and national origin, Liberia, in
violation of Section 2-102(A) of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
...7. As to Counts C and D, the Department's investigation did not
reveal that Respondent subjected Complainant to unequal terms and
conditions of employment based on his race or national origin. The
Department's investigation revealed that pursuant to Respondent's
Tuition Reimbursement Policy, Respondent will reimburse its employees
up to $2,000 per year for tuition costs if the employee submits a
tuition assistance request form to their manager for approval prior to
class registration and then submit the tuition assistance request form
to Human Resources for approval. In this case, the investigation did
not reveal, and Complainant failed to show, any evidence that
Complainant requested tuition assistance or that Respondent provided
tuition reimbursement for Kroll or Raczynski. The investigation did
reveal that Respondent provided tuition reimbursement for Jeannette
Williams (Black, USA), Hattie Johnson (Black, USA) and Andrea
Middleton (Black, USA). As stated above in paragraph four, Complainant
has failed to show that he suffered an adverse harm; therefore, he
fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as to Counts C
and D. There is no evidence that Respondent subjected Complainant to
unequal terms and conditions of employment based on his race or
national origin.
==========
http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2002/9_02/Lampricht,%20I.htm
On February 2, 2000, amended October 23, 2000, Complainant filed a
charge of discrimination with the Department, alleging that Respondent
failed to promote her to the position of Security Officer II because
of her sex, female (Count A), and because of her physical handicap,
cancer (Count B); failed to promote her to the position of Security
Supervisor because of her sex (Count C), and her physical handicap
(Count D); denied her tuition reimbursement because of her sex (Count
E), and her physical handicap (Count F)...
...the investigation does not reveal that Respondent denied
Complainant tuition reimbursement because of her sex or her physical
handicap. Respondent has a Tuition Reimbursement Policy that requires
employees to submit a tuition aid application to obtain approval for
tuition reimbursement before the beginning of the course. The evidence
reveals that the job description for Security Officer I does not
require crisis prevention training. The evidence reveals that
Complainant completed an instructor-level crisis prevention course for
which she sought reimbursement. The evidence shows that on or about
August 10, 1999, Respondent failed to reimburse Complainant for the
tuition associated with the course. The investigation reveals that
Complainant did not follow Respondent's procedures because she did not
receive prior written approval on her tuition aid application before
taking the crisis prevention course. Further, the investigation does
not reveal, and Complainant has not identified, a similarly situated
male or non-handicapped employee whom Respondent reimbursed under
similar circumstances. Additionally, as to Count F, there is no
evidence that Complainant is handicapped under the Act. Even if
Complainant were handicapped within the meaning of the Act, there is
no evidence of a nexus between Complainant's physical handicap or sex
and Respondent's decision not to reimburse her for the tuition for the
crisis prevention course. Therefore, there is no evidence that
Respondent denied Complainant tuition reimbursement because of her sex
or her physical handicap.
==========
I did not find any cases where an employee in Illinois was successful
in bringing a claim of discrimination against an employer based on the
operation of a tuition reimbursement program.
By the way, as noted in one of the comments (below), one of the best
things an employer can do to implement a tuition reimbursement fairly
and to avoid charges of discrimination is to establish a clear policy
statement -- available to all employees -- as to who is eligible for
reimbursement, and how the program works.
I trust this information fully meets your needs. But before rating
this answer, please let me know if there's anything else I can do for
you. Just post a Request for Clarification, and I'll be happy to
assist you further.
All the best,
pafalafa-ga
search strategy -- Google searches on:
"tuition reimbursement" site:il.us
"tuition reimbursement" IL (eligible OR eligibility} |
