Obligations and prohibited acts

An employer may not discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee for engaging in protected activities described in the rule, including intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting, or disciplining the employee as stated in 1984.102(a).

• Examples of prohibited actions listed in the rule include discharge, intimidation, threats, restraint, coercion, blacklisting, and discipline.
• This prohibition protects actions taken with respect to an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

An employee who received a credit under 26 U.S.C. 36B, a cost-sharing reduction, or was determined eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) is protected from retaliation under 1984.102(b)(1).

• Protection covers retaliation that affects compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment as described in 1984.102(a).

Yes — an employee who provides, causes to be provided, or is about to provide information to the employer (or the Federal Government or State attorney general) about an act the employee reasonably believes is a violation of Title I of the Affordable Care Act is protected from retaliation under 1984.102(b)(2).

• The protection applies whether the information is provided to the employer, the Federal Government, or a State attorney general.
• The rule covers both actual reporting and the act of being about to report.

Yes — an employee who testifies or is about to testify in a proceeding concerning a violation of Title I of the Affordable Care Act is protected from retaliation under 1984.102(b)(3).

• ‘‘About to testify’’ is explicitly included, so protection applies even before testimony occurs.

Yes — an employee who assists or participates, or is about to assist or participate, in a proceeding concerning a violation of Title I of the Affordable Care Act is protected from retaliation under 1984.102(b)(4).

• This covers both actual involvement and situations where the employee is about to become involved.

Yes — an employee who objects to or refuses to participate in any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task they reasonably believe violates Title I of the Affordable Care Act is protected from retaliation under 1984.102(b)(5).

• The protection applies when the belief is reasonable and concerns violations of Title I or any related order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under Title I.

Yes — protection covers the employee as well as an individual acting at the request of the employee who engages in any of the activities listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5), according to 1984.102(a).

• This means a coworker or representative acting for the employee is covered when performing protected activities on the employee's behalf.

An employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment are protected from retaliatory changes for engaging in listed activities under 1984.102(a).

• ‘‘Compensation’’ includes pay and benefits; ‘‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’’ covers things like assignments, schedules, promotions, and discipline.
• Any adverse change tied to protected activity may constitute retaliation under the rule.

Yes — the rule explicitly protects employees who are ‘‘about to’’ engage in protected actions such as providing information, testifying, or participating in proceedings, as stated across 1984.102(b)(2), 1984.102(b)(3), and 1984.102(b)(4).

• This prospective protection prevents employers from punishing employees in anticipation of protected activity.

No — protection applies when the employee provides information about a violation or an act the employee reasonably believes is a violation of Title I of the Affordable Care Act, so the employee’s reasonable belief is the key factor under 1984.102(b)(2).

• The rule protects good-faith reporting based on a reasonable belief, not only reports of proven violations.

Yes — providing information to the employer about an act the employee reasonably believes violates Title I of the Affordable Care Act is protected under 1984.102(b)(2), so informal complaints made to a supervisor are covered if they meet the reasonable-belief standard.

• The protection applies whether the information is provided to the employer or to external authorities, as stated in the same provision.

Yes — assistance or participation in a proceeding concerning an ACA Title I violation, including proceedings by the Federal Government or a State attorney general, is protected under 1984.102(b)(4).

• Protection includes being about to assist or participate as well as actual participation.

No — disciplining an employee for objecting to or refusing to participate in an activity they reasonably believe violates Title I of the Affordable Care Act is prohibited under 1984.102(b)(5) and the general anti-retaliation rule in 1984.102(a).

• The rule requires that the employee’s belief be reasonable regarding the alleged violation.

Yes — assisting or participating in a proceeding, or providing information about a violation at the request of another employee, is protected under 1984.102(b)(2) and 1984.102(b)(4).

• The protection explicitly includes individuals acting at the request of the employee under 1984.102(a).

Yes — threats, blacklisting, and similar acts are explicitly listed as forms of retaliation prohibited under 1984.102(a).

• Any such actions taken because the employee engaged in protected activity can violate the rule.

Yes — being determined eligible by an Exchange for advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) or for a cost-sharing reduction is a protected activity under 1984.102(b)(1).

• Retaliation against employees based on these eligibility determinations is prohibited under 1984.102(a).

Yes — the rule protects employees who provide information to the Federal Government or a State attorney general about acts they reasonably believe violate Title I of the Affordable Care Act, as described in 1984.102(b)(2).

• The protection covers both internal and external reporting channels.

No — protection is based on the employee’s reasonable belief that an act, omission, or practice violates Title I of the Affordable Care Act, not on the ultimate correctness of that belief, under 1984.102(b)(2).

• The ‘‘reasonable belief’’ standard is central to protecting good-faith reporters.

Yes — any action that disciplines or otherwise adversely affects compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of protected activity would be considered retaliation under 1984.102(a).

• Employers should avoid adverse measures tied to protected actions even if labeled as temporary or investigatory.

Yes — the rule states broadly that no employer may retaliate against any employee who engages in the protected activities listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5), per 1984.102(a).

• The protection applies regardless of the employee’s position, provided the activity falls within the enumerated protected acts.

Yes — protection covers objections or refusals to participate in activities the employee reasonably believes violate Title I of the Affordable Care Act or any related order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under Title I, as stated in 1984.102(b)(5).

• This includes administrative requirements or rules implementing Title I, not only the statutory provisions.

Yes — providing information or assisting with matters related to suspected violations is protected, and informal discussions that convey such information or involve assisting others would fall under 1984.102(b)(2) and 1984.102(b)(4).

• The key is that the employee’s communication or assistance relates to an act they reasonably believe violates Title I.