Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc. is a recent Sixth Circuit case that highlights that all anti-retaliation provisions are not created equal. And while not equal, there certainly are a lot of them. In fact, there are at least 40 federal anti-retaliation laws, and this does not even include all the various state statutory and common … Continue Reading
The Pennsylvania General Assembly has given us another opportunity to expand our employee benefit plan boundaries discussion. This time, the discussion applies to multiemployer plans in the construction industry. It has been reported that Rep. William Keller, D-Philadelphia, introduced a bill in the General Assembly to amend the state’s Mechanics’ Lien Law to classify union … Continue Reading
As a follow up to our blog on the ERISA sponsor / fiduciary boundary dispute, here is another case, Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., from the Second Circuit. The employer decided to make contributions in the form of company stock, rather than cash. Then the employer’s stock price plunged in conjunction with the … Continue Reading
And the gloves are off! The IRS has threatened employers with PPACA penalties of $36,500 per employee, per year, nondeductible. Makes those $2,000 and $3,000 penalties look like small potatoes, right? The targets of this particular Q&A are employers who maintain “non-integrated” “employer payment plans.” These are new terms, which include reimbursement plans such as … Continue Reading
My assistant informed me that my patience is shot and I need to do something about that, so I am channeling my energy into one issue. Since health care reform was enacted, I have been hearing about how we should anticipate a flood of ERISA Section 510 (29 U.S.C. Section 1140) discrimination cases from people … Continue Reading
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Sixth Circuit retiree health care case, M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett. The issue is: Whether, when construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, courts should presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits … Continue Reading
“Can I have all documents related to my retirement plan benefit?” If you are involved with administering an ERISA-governed plan, you have probably received this type of vague request. After reading your crystal ball, you might assume the participant wants a summary plan description and perhaps a copy of the plan document. While that seems reasonable, the … Continue Reading
We have a new Sixth Circuit decision regarding “vested” retiree health care benefits that is likely to be of concern to many employers, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial And Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Kelsey-Hayes Company. You may recall that in the last significant Sixth Circuit decision on this … Continue Reading
Join Porter Wright’s Employment Group for our Spring Employment Relations Seminar -Keeping Your Workforce Healthy, Wealthy and Wise – on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 in Cleveland. Topics include: Keeping Pace: Learn the Latest in Employment Law presented by Tracey L. Turnbull De-Stress: Effectively Managing Mental Stress Claims in Workers’ Compensation Cases presented by Fred … Continue Reading
The Form 5310 Application for Determination for Terminating Plan instructions, updated in December 2013, added an odd and time-consuming new requirement, “Submit proof that any rollovers or asset transfers received [during the year of plan termination and five prior plan years] were from a qualified plan or IRA (for example, DL [determination letter] and timely … Continue Reading
Employers have always been concerned about the potential for worker reclassification, but health care reform and a recent NLRB decision take this issue to an entirely new level. “Large” employers who offer coverage will be required to offer coverage to “all” of their “full-time workers,” defined as at least 95% of employees working 30 hours … Continue Reading
On our sister blog — Employer Law Report — our partner Brian Hall wrote about the likely availability of an Alzheimer’s blood test, and the impact of new genetic testing in the context of employer sponsored group health care plans and wellness programs. Brian spoke of the “imaginary line” that separates protected health information from human … Continue Reading
Settlement agreements are fairly common in the ERISA / employee benefits area. We typically do not need “unique” provisions for these agreements, beyond making sure all the proper parties are named and that ERISA is referenced. But two issues typically require extra attention: confidentiality provisions, and payment method (including tax withholding and reporting). As discussed in our sister blog, a party might quietly violate a confidentiality provision, and get away with it without causing any real harm.… Continue Reading
Department of Labor investigations of employee benefit plans can be challenging experiences for employers. The time demand can be a significant drain on the business, and the employer needs to be concerned about potential issues the investigator may raise. We believe the best defense is a good offense: we like our clients to take their responsibilities seriously well before an investigation. But employers are sometimes surprised that an investigator asks questions that were not asked by the auditors who conducted independent financial statement audits over the years. As a JD/CPA (double geek) I can tell you this audit is only one step in the ERISA fiduciary due diligence process. But, I thought it would be helpful to seek the input of a CPA who has been a member of both the Executive Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), Employee Benefit Plan Audit Quality Center, and the AICPA Employee Benefit Plans Expert Panel – James E. Merklin, partner in charge of Assurance Services at Bober Markey Fedorovich, an independent CPA firm. Jim was gracious enough to share his perspective.… Continue Reading
Hot off the press are the final regulations for the employer shared responsibility provisions of the Affordable Care Act (more commonly referred to as the “pay-or-play mandate”). In fact, the regulations are so new that they will not actually be published in the Federal Register until tomorrow, February 12. … Continue Reading
In light of health care reform, we anticipate ERISA preemption cases to start popping up more frequently. Two recent decisions demonstrate that ERISA preemption is complicated, except when it isn’t. In Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Donegal, Second Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs explains the complicated nature of ERISA preemption. This opinion may be helpful for anyone to develop a better understanding of the topic and its history. … Continue Reading
If you are a board member or senior executive of a company that is rapidly failing, what do you about employee benefits? No one has ever liked my answer: freeze the benefits. This is counterintuitive advice for someone who is trying to keep the company afloat, and who would be personally affected by the loss of benefits. But let me explain why this is so important, using a complaint that was recently filed by the DOL, and the facts as they were alleged.… Continue Reading
If you are a federal contractor or subcontractor, you will want to be sure your team is ready to handle its expanded affirmative opportunity requirements. Consider participating in Porter Wright’s upcoming OFCCP regulation webinars, or passing this invitation along to the person responsible for compliance.
Are You Ready for the New OFCCP Regulations?
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
2:15 p.m. EST… Continue Reading
I am not a fan of binding arbitration in the context of ERISA plans, and a new Sixth Circuit decision, Schafer v. Multiband Corp., demonstrates why.
Two individuals (Schafer and Block) founded a company. As part of a series of corporate transactions, two employee stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”) were formed. Schafer and Block were appointed as trustees of the ESOPs, and entered into indemnification agreements with mandatory arbitration clauses. While the DOL was investigating its suspicion that the ESOPs had purchased stock at inflated prices, and with knowledge of this, Multiband entered into a purchase agreement to buy the holding company. As part of the transaction, Multiband entered into indemnification agreements that contained essentially the same provisions as the prior agreements.… Continue Reading
Frommert v. Conkright, the Xerox “actuarial heresy” floor-offset plan case is back. This time, the Second Circuit has ruled that the new interpretation of the plan is unreasonable, and that ERISA’s “notice provisions” were violated.
Stating, “SPDs are central to ERISA,” the Court concluded that the SPD (summary plan description) did not satisfy 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-3(l) because the SPD did not describe the offset provision in question in more detail. The Court held, “the Plan and its related SPDs violate ERISA’s notice provisions” and “Plaintiffs’ notice claims fall under Section 502(a)(3).” … Continue Reading
As I mentioned in my Heimeshoff v. Hartford blog, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bancorp, now captioned Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. The Court granted certiorari on the question as originally framed:
Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by holding that Respondents were not required to plausibly allege in their complaint that the fiduciaries of an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) abused their discretion by remaining invested in employer stock, in order to overcome the presumption that their decision to invest in employer stock was reasonable, as required by [ERISA], and every other circuit to address the issue.… Continue Reading
I have been blogging about ERISA basic principles and respect for boundaries, and just got a little help from the U.S. Supreme Court. In Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life Accident Insurance Comany, a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the terms of the ERISA benefit plan document. The Court held that while a cause of action does not commence until the plan issues a final denial in the claims appeal process, the plan and its participants can agree to commence the limitation period before that time (here, at the proof of loss due date).… Continue Reading
During the most recent recession (some might say a mini depression), many employers requested greater flexibility to reduce or suspend safe harbor non-elective contributions to their 401(k) plans. They felt that a temporary reduction or suspension of contributions would be a better alternative than outright terminating their plans. Although the applicable regulations contained procedures for reducing or suspending safe harbor matching contributions, it wasn’t until Treasury issued proposed regulations on May 18, 2009, that a procedure was available to reduce or suspend safe harbor non-elective contributions. Recently, Treasury issued final regulations that revise the requirements for permitted mid-year reductions or suspensions of safe harbor non-elective contributions. Somewhat surprisingly, the final regulations also modified the procedures for mid-year reductions or suspensions of safe harbor matching contributions to 401(k) plans. They also suggested that some relief may be on the way with respect to other types of mid-year plan amendments.… Continue Reading
When you think about it, balance is really important. It is hard to imagine how we all stand steady on a planet that is rotating on its access and rotating around the sun. The last earthquake I experienced left me queasy afterward, and that is how I feel after reading a new decision. Curses (or thank you?) to Brian Hall, editor of our sister blog, employerlawreport.com, for forwarding.
Within days of writing the Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bank blog about a threat to ERISA’s delicate balance and importance of boundaries, we have yet another Sixth Circuit decision that blazes past boundaries and throws that delicate balance into a tailspin. The Sixth Circuit has, in the words of dissenting Judge McKeague, “taken an unprecedented and extraordinary step to expand the scope of ERISA coverage.”… Continue Reading
