PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - ERISA Forfeiture Litigation
ERISA Blog | Changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rules A Primer for Self-Insured Group Health Plans
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - What the J&J Case Means for Plan Administrators
The No Surprises Act: A Cost Saving Opportunity for Employer Plan Sponsors
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New Federal Rule Aims to Hold Investment Advisors to a Higher Standard
Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation: Getting Ready for 2024 – Top-Hat Plans — Special Edition Podcast
Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation: Getting Ready for 2024 - Health and Welfare Plan Developments — Special Edition Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Partial Plan Terminations
Podcast Episode 189: Adding Context to Compliance and Color To Your Legal Practice
#WorkforceWednesday: SECURE Act 2.0 - What 401(k) Plan Sponsors Need to Know - Employment Law This Week®
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Plan Administrators’ 2022 Year-End Checklist
An Inside Look as a Juror - FCRA Focus Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Multiemployer Plans
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Court Decisions Impacting Plan Sponsors and Fiduciaries
(A)ESOP's Fables - The Income and Estate Tax-Free ESOP
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - What Constitutes Plan Assets Under ERISA?
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Group Health Plan Service Provider Compensation Disclosure Requirements
Update and Discussion on Legal and Practical Issues
Welcome to 'Just Compensation'
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - ..6-3 decision: Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, with separate concurrences from Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts, and dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor,...more
The implications of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade’s constitutional right to abortion have had sweeping implications that affect...more
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that protected a woman’s right to have an abortion. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade in its consequential decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. With federal protection for abortion now dissolved, many employers are...more
On Friday, June 24, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and held that the United States Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to terminate her...more
As federal and state agencies and courts further examine the implications of the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling on same-sex marriage in U.S. v. Windsor, the laws and regulations governing employee benefits for...more
President Obama plans to announce today a proposed rule that would allow an employee to take FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse, regardless of whether the employee lives in a state that recognizes their marital status. ...more
Here is a brief update to our September 24, 2013 alert, which addressed the administration of employee benefits as well as federal income taxes and FMLA leave following this summer’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in United...more
The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), the Employee Benefits Security Administration ("EBSA") and the Department of Labor ("DOL") have recently provided new guidance with respect to how lawfully married same-sex spouses will...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that Section 3 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented the federal government from recognizing state-granted same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional because...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defined “marriage” as strictly between opposite-sex couples and “spouse” as referring only to a...more
Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides some initial...more
Well, our title is a bit provocative in that not all of your “post-DOMA” questions have yet been answered by the IRS (who defines “spouse” for purposes of employee benefits under ERISA as well as taxation under the Internal...more
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”) have recently provided new guidance with respect to how lawfully married same-sex spouses will...more
In the recently-issued opinion in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the...more
On June 26, 2013, a majority of the Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman, is...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Windsor v. United States holding that same-sex marriages valid under state law are now recognized at the federal level, thereby transforming the treatment of...more
Court's holding makes federal benefits and tax advantages available to same-sex couples but raises further questions. On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in United States v. Windsor,...more
While the U.S. Supreme Court(the “Court”) ruled section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional, that does not mean that the changes for human resources departments and employee benefits plans can be...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decisions in two same-sex marriage cases. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, the Court ruled that the proponents of a popular voter initiative that reversed...more
Now that they Supreme Court has ruled, in a common refrain heard on Twitter today, that love is love is love, what does this actually mean going forward? And, specifically, we asked attorneys writing on JD Supra to tell us...more
Today’s Supreme Court decisions will have a major impact upon business entities, employers and individuals in New York, New Jersey, and several other states including California, due to the change of the definitions of...more
In our 2012 End of Year Plan Sponsor “To Do” Lists, we indicated that there was a strong possibility that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari this term in a series of cases challenging Section 3 of the Defense of...more