Employee Benefits / Employment Law / HR
Showing 385–400 of 653 results
-
Offsetting stagnant salaries with increased benefits
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 533
Abstract: While base pay remains a top consideration to attract and retain employees, increasingly a strong benefits package is important as well. Towers Watson, a leading global professional services company, found in a recent survey that employers indicated they may allocate more funds for employee benefits because of only moderate pay increases in the coming year. This article explains why employers who offer a competitive benefits package may have a better chance to attract and retain the key employees they need.
-
Can you define “compensation”? — A review of IRS definitions that affect qualified plans
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 830
Abstract: Accurately defining compensation is one of the more complex areas in qualified plans. The term “compensation” is used in various ways, and the choices made by an employer will directly affect the administration, and ultimately the costs, of maintaining a qualified plan. This article reviews the definitions of compensation types that affect qualified plans.
-
It’s time to reap the benefits of matching contributions
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 801
Abstract: Employees benefit from an employer match because they’re receiving “free” money in their employer-sponsored retirement plan. But how do employers benefit from matching contributions? This article highlights the benefits to employers who provide matching contributions to participants, and shows how to determine what type of plan design and employer match is best. A sidebar discusses safe harbor matching plans.
-
In treatment (or not): An FMLA case
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 877
Abstract: If an employee exceeds approved Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off for a medical procedure by visiting the doctor’s office at a separate location prior to the procedure, does that time qualify as "treatment"? No, according to the Seventh Circuit. This article discusses a case that illustrates the complexity of defining "treatment" according to the FMLA. Citation: Jones v. C &D Technologies, Inc., No. 11-3400, June 28, 2012 (7th Cir.)
-
All joking aside — Tenth Circuit addresses hostile work environment
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 765
Abstract: When a food service worker felt she was the object of racially insensitive jokes — even after her complaints to management — she requested a transfer to a different department. This was denied, and she was fired after she failed to return to work. She sued, alleging that she’d been subjected to a hostile work environment and then constructively discharged in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But had she been subjected to enough abuse to make her claim of a hostile work environment stick? This article looks at the Tenth Circuit’s verdict. Citation: Hernandez v. Valley View Hospital, No. 11–1244, June 26, 2012 (10th Cir.)
-
Same-sex discrimination cases pose added challenges
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1071
Abstract: Even under the most clear-cut circumstances, dealing with sexual harassment allegations poses challenges for employers. When same-sex discrimination is involved, however, the challenges are often compounded. This article discusses a case involving a worker who quit when he believed his employer was insufficiently responsive to his allegations of sexual harassment by a same-sex co-worker. The article also describes a test the Supreme Court adopted in 1998 to be used in same-sex cases, and why the Sixth Circuit ruled against the plaintiff in this present-day instance. A sidebar looks at the 1998 case. Citations: Wasek v. Arrow Energy Services, Inc., No. 10-2418, June 20, 2012 (6th Cir.). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., No. 96-568, March 4, 1998 (Supreme Court). Redd v. New York State Division of Parole, No. 10-1410-cv, May 4, 2012 (2nd Cir.)
-
You have been WARNed — Recent case addresses notice requirement for mass layoffs
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 714
Abstract: In late 2008, the national economic crisis hit the steel business hard — including U.S. Steel. When it laid off workers before the end of the year, the union sued, claiming that the company had not given 60 days’ notice, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The company claimed its actions were protected by the act’s "unforeseeable business circumstances" exception. This article explains why the Eighth Circuit agreed. Citation: United Steel Workers of America Local 2660 v. United States Steel Corporation, No. 11-3002, July 2, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
COMPLIANCE ALERT
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 81
Abstract: A brief list of key tax reporting deadlines for December and January.
-
Navigating the revised Form 2848
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 384
Abstract: Third-party administrators (TPAs) use IRS Form 2848, "Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative," when representing clients on matters concerning IRS notices. The form allows TPAs to apply for a determination letter on the client’s behalf. The TPA or plan administrator must complete Form 2848 when using voluntary correction programs. This brief article summarizes the revised Form 2848 that affects retirement plans.
-
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act — PBGC premiums increased and pension plan funding stabilized
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 449
Abstract: In July, President Obama signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The act significantly affects pension plans through the stabilization of pension funding and by increasing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums substantially through 2015. This article reviews what pension plan sponsors need to know.
-
Are you ready for a plan audit?
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 809
Abstract: Federal audits and investigations of retirement plans are on the rise. With proper preparation, plan sponsors can get through the process with minimal problems. A well-prepared employer will help simplify the audit process, minimize paperwork, lower administrative costs and reduce risks connected with an audit. This article describes what every sponsor can do to ease the audit process.
-
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — What plan sponsors need to do to be ready for 2013
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 940
Abstract: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the resulting U.S. Supreme Court decision made headlines for most of 2012. PPACA requires important changes for plan sponsors in 2013. This article presents some of the highlights.
-
Use your best (business) judgment — Equal Pay Act’s burden of proof put to the test
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 735
Abstract: Claiming that she was being paid less than a male co-worker who performed nearly identical duties, a nurse sued her employer under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. At trial, the judge gave the jury a "business-judgment" instruction that the plaintiff felt was inappropriate for an EPA case. This article notes that the Eighth Circuit agreed, but still affirmed the district court’s decision. Citation: Bauer v. Curators of the University of Missouri, No. 11-2758, June 6, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
Does Title VII apply to the spouse of an illegal immigrant?
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 923
Abstract: Not long after a bank learned that one of its employees had joint accounts at the bank with a known undocumented alien — her husband — it fired her, concerned that fraudulent documentation may have been involved. She sued under Title VII, claiming national origin discrimination. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the lower court that it was the husband’s undocumented status, and not his national origin, that led to her discharge. The question then became whether Title VII protects against "alienage-based" discrimination. This article explains the court’s decision that it does not. Citation: Cortezano v. Salin Bank and Trust Company, No. 11-1631, May 21, 2012 (7th Cir.); Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Company, No. 414 U.S. 86, Nov. 19, 1973 (Supreme Court)
-
Temp to perm — ADA case turns on severity of employee’s injury
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1128
Abstract: After injuring her knee, a drugstore employee accepted an offer to return as a store manager — but with the understanding that she had some physical limitations. When her doctor decided that they were permanent, she was fired because she could "no longer perform the essential functions" of her job. She sued, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The First Circuit examined whether these functions were indeed essential, and, if so, whether she could perform them with or without a reasonable accommodation. The Court decided against her, but a sidebar to this article discusses a case with a different outcome. Citation: Jones v. Walgreen Co., No. 11-1917, May 10, 2012 (1st Cir.); Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, No. 10-1102, July 8, 2011 (1st Cir.)
-
No overtime for detailers, says the Supreme Court
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 679
Abstract: Do the job duties of pharmaceutical sales representatives, or "detailers," qualify for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? That was the question set before the U.S. Supreme Court in one recent case. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) submitted an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs’ position, but this article examines the reasons why the Court was unpersuaded. Citation: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 11-204, June 18, 2012 (Supreme Court)