Employee Benefits / Employment Law / HR
Showing 401–416 of 653 results
-
COMPLIANCE ALERT
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 88
Abstract: A brief list of key tax reporting deadlines for October through December.
-
Reformation and surcharge under ERISA — Expanding on a Supreme Court theory
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 428
Abstract: Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a summary plan description (SPD) isn’t a plan document subject to enforcement under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Court did, however, state that, if an employer issued an intentionally misleading SPD, a plan participant may have an ERISA claim under equitable doctrines, such as reformation and surcharge. This brief article reviews a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case that tackled this issue. Citation: Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B, 673 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2012); ERISA §502(a)(1)(B).
-
The DOL issues opinions on "open" multiple employer plans
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 487
Abstract: Earlier this year, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued two advisory opinions that address the legitimacy of "open" multiple employer plans (MEPs). An open MEP acts as plan sponsor and plan administrator under ERISA of a single plan under which unrelated employers participate. This article discusses the DOL’s conclusion that an "open" MEP isn’t a single retirement plan under ERISA. Citation: DOL advisory opinions 2012-03A and 2012-04A
-
Does your plan have the right vesting schedule?
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 833
Abstract: Vesting defines the amount of ownership a plan participant has in employer contributions according to the plan sponsor’s predetermined vesting schedule. Vesting schedules can vary by retirement plan. This article summarizes the different types of vesting schedules and why a plan sponsor may choose to add or change an employer contribution vesting schedule.
-
Employees seek more security, yet take more responsibility — Highlights of MetLife’s benefits trends study
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 823
Abstract: MetLife has released its 10th Annual Study of Employee Benefits Trends. The study is a compilation of the results of surveys of employers and employees about issues facing the U.S. benefits industry today. This article reviews some of the study’s highlights.
-
Parting words: Severance package sparks lawsuit
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 782
Abstract: Can an employer’s offer of a severance package constitute an adverse employment action? That was the question in a case heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Here the plaintiff sued her employer for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming she’d been offered a less favorable severance package than similarly situated male employees. The district court found that "the terms and conditions of the severance package do not constitute an actionable adverse employment action under Title VII" — but this article explains why the Fourth Circuit felt otherwise. Citation: Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, No. 11-1218, March 16, 2012 (4th Cir.); Hishon v. King & Spalding, No. 82-940, May 22, 1984 (Supreme Court)
-
No good deed goes unpunished — Retroactive FMLA leave plays key role in lawsuit
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 771
Abstract: After a supervisor noticed that an employee had an unacceptably high number of absences, she asked her whether she wanted to retroactively apply any Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) days to absences she’d had earlier because of a back injury. The employee agreed, but was nevertheless terminated after repeated unapproved absences. The employee then brought an FMLA action for interference. This article explains why the Eighth Circuit wasn’t sympathetic. Citation: Lovland v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 11-2076, March 16, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
Is good attendance an essential job function?
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 721
Abstract: This article looks at a case that asks whether an employer failed to accommodate a disabled employee who had requested exemption from the employer’s attendance policy. In making this determination, the court had to answer the question: Is good attendance an essential job function? The Ninth Circuit said "yes." Citation: Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Medical Center, No. 10-35811, April 11, 2012 (9th Cir.)
-
Please demote me — Employer bucks policy, prompting reverse discrimination case
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1074
Abstract: Most employees don’t ask to be demoted. But when an employer’s policy is to demote problematic workers rather than terminate them, submitting a demotion request makes a little more sense. This article discusses a case in which a worker was terminated rather than demoted. Noting that several employees of different races were allowed to take demotions, she sued, alleging reverse discrimination. This article explains why the Seventh Circuit ruled against her, while a sidebar looks at a different case with different results. Citation: Good v. University of Chicago Medical Center, No. 11-2679, March 12, 2012 (7th Cir.); Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., No. 05-1654, Feb. 7, 2006 (7th Cir.)
-
COMPLIANCE ALERT
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 66
Abstract: A brief list of key tax reporting deadlines for September and October.
-
Timing is key in miscalculation-of-benefits lawsuits
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 403
Abstract: The statute of limitations defines the time after which a plaintiff can no longer file a lawsuit against a defendant. If a qualified retirement plan denies benefits to a participant, when does a claim for benefits "accrue" to trigger the running of the statute of limitations? A recent court case examines this issue. Citation: Novella v. Westchester County, 661 F.3d 128 (2nd Cir. 2011); Wise v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 600 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2010); Young v. Verizon’s Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan, 667 F.Supp.2d 850 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Miller v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Co., 475 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2007).
-
When to pay plan benefits to an alternate payee — A qualified domestic relations order primer
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 638
Abstract: A qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is a domestic relations order in which an alternate payee receives all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under a retirement plan. To be a QDRO, however, certain requirements must be met. This article summarizes the basics of a QDRO.
-
Are you sending the required notices to participants?
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 799
Abstract: Numerous laws and regulations require plan sponsors to provide retirement plan participants notice of various plan documents or occurrences. Even though each plan is different, this article identifies some general plan-related notices and specific notices for defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) plans.
-
Now is the time — Questions to ask when reviewing service providers
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 798
Abstract: Most retirement plan sponsors think about converting to new providers starting with the new plan year. For calendar year plans, the new plan year begins on Jan. 1. To be ready for that date, now is the time to examine service providers and decide whether to make a change. This article offers some guidelines regarding what to look for.
-
The amendment effect — ADA changes put to the test in recent case
July / August 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 869
Abstract: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a person is disabled if he or she suffers from a physical or mental impairment (the first prong) that substantially limits (the second prong) one or more major life activities (the third prong). This article discusses an employee who sued her former employer for failure to accommodate her medical condition and for wrongful termination. At issue was the language used to establish the last two prongs, in light of recently revised Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations. Citation: Allen v. SouthCrest Hospital, No. 11-5016, Dec. 21, 2011 (10th Cir.)
-
Step carefully when terminating employees on FMLA leave
July / August 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 719
Abstract: A fast-food restaurant fired an employee it suspected of stealing — but it didn’t do itself any favors by waiting nearly two weeks before terminating her, and doing so on her first day back from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. This article shows how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the "honest belief rule" in determining whether or not the employer had violated the law. Citation: Donald v. Sybra, Incorporated, No. 10-2153, Jan. 17, 2012 (6th Cir.)