XML 19 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.1
Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Operating Leases

Refer to Note 9Leases for commitments related to our operating leases.

Contingencies

From time to time, we receive inquiries from governmental bodies and also may be subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in our consolidated financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the consolidated financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We accrued approximately $1.2 million as of March 31, 2020 for amounts we believe will be payable for certain current legal proceedings, including the matters discussed below. Legal proceedings or other contingencies could result in material costs, even if we ultimately prevail.


Legal Proceedings

On April 6, 2018, a former employee, Lupita Gonzalez, filed a complaint against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento (the “Gonzalez Complaint”). The Gonzalez Complaint is brought under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who work or have worked for us in California. The claim alleges that we violated wage and hour laws with respect to these non-exempt employees, including, among other things, the failure to comply with California law as to (i) the payment of overtime
wages; (ii) the payment of minimum wages; (iii) providing compliant meal and rest periods, (iv) the payment of wages earned during employment and owed upon the termination of employment; (v) providing complete and accurate wage statements, (vi) keeping of accurate payroll records; and (vii) the proper reimbursement for necessary business-related expenses and costs. The Gonzalez Complaint seeks penalties and costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

On July 1, 2019, two other current or former employees, Michael Le’Vias and Ramona Meadows, filed a related complaint against us and eHealth Ins. Serv. Co., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara (the “Le’Vias Complaint”). A substantial overlap exists between the facts and circumstances alleged in the Gonzalez Complaint and the Le’Vias Complaint. Specifically, the Le’Vias Complaint is also brought under PAGA on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who work or have worked for us in California. The claim alleges that we violated wage and hour laws with respect to these non-exempt employees, including, among other things, the failure to comply with California law as to (i) the payment of overtime wages; (ii) the payment of minimum wages; (iii) providing compliant meal and rest periods, (iv) the payment of wages earned during employment and owed upon the termination of employment; (v) providing complete and accurate wage statements, (vi) keeping of accurate payroll records; and (vii) the proper reimbursement for necessary business-related expenses and costs. The Le’Vias Complaint seeks unpaid wages, penalties and costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.

The parties have agreed to resolve both the Le’Vias and Gonzalez Complaints, which settlement will require court approval. In the interim, the parties have filed notices of conditional settlement in both matters, and the April 13, 2020 trial date for the Gonzalez matter has been vacated.

On April 8, 2020 and April 29, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chief executive officer, Scott N. Flanders, our chief financial officer, Derek N. Yung and our chief operating officer, David K. Francis, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.). The complaints allege, among other things, that we and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding our accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member churn and our profitability during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020. The complaints allege that we and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit) punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. We believe the lawsuits to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them.

Service and Licensing Obligations

We have entered into service and licensing agreements with third party vendors to provide various services, including network access, equipment maintenance and software licensing. As the benefits of these agreements are experienced uniformly over the applicable contractual periods, we record the related service and licensing expenses on a straight-line basis, although actual cash payment obligations under certain of these agreements fluctuate over the terms of the agreements.
Our future minimum payments under non-cancellable contractual service and licensing obligations as of March 31, 2020 are summarized as follows (in thousands): 
For the Years Ending December 31,Service and Licensing Obligations
Remainder of 2020$1,961  
20212,189  
2022692  
2023444  
2024229  
Thereafter—  
Total$5,515