PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New IRS Guidance on SECURE 2.0 Act Student Loan Employer Contributions
Current Executive Compensation Trends in Private Equity Transactions — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law Updates
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
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 26: Compensation Compliance with Joan Moore and Mim Munzel of The Arbor Consulting Group
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - IRS Clarifies Emergency Distributions Tax Exceptions
TRAs: Benefits, Complexities (and Private Jets) Explained with Tax Attorney David Peck
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 22: Compensation Programs with Carrie Cavanaugh of Find Great People
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 21: Economic, Industry, and Workforce Development in the City of Greenville with Mayor Knox White
California Employment News: Brief Overview of Leave Laws All California Employers Should Be Aware Of (Podcast)
California Employment News: Brief Overview of Leave Laws All California Employers Should Be Aware Of
La Reforma Pensional en Colombia
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Understanding Lifetime Income Products
Multiemployer Pension Plans in Mergers and Acquisitions — Troutman Pepper Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Trends in Recordkeeper Consolidation and Due Diligence
The Evolution of Employee Sick Days in a Post-COVID-19 Workplace With Parks and Rec — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 10: Greenville SHRM with Courtney Goforth and Jennifer Floyd
Long-Term Part-Time Employee Eligibility Rules Now in Effect — Troutman Pepper Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - What the J&J Case Means for Plan Administrators
As we approach the end of the year, employers and plan sponsors of qualified retirement plans and health and welfare plans should take time to meet various upcoming deadlines. Failure to comply with the deadlines may result...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
With this summer’s Supreme Court rulings on DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and Prop. 8 allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized in states that allow them, private sector and public agency employers in California...more
On August 29, 2013, IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 which clarified that for federal income tax purposes, the marital status of a same-sex couple is based on the state law or foreign law (e.g. Canada) where the marriage was...more
When the Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. v. Windsor on June 26, it invalidated the federal definitions of “spouse” and “marriage,” and, in so doing, altered employer obligations with respect to same-sex marriages....more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. This decision will...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which required the federal government to deny married same-sex couples the rights and benefits provided to...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
The regulation of marriage was historically presumed to be the exclusive domain of the states. Since 1996, however, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”) changed this presumption in two important respects...more
Two controversial cases involving same-sex marriage were decided on June 26, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court. ...more
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined “marriage” for purposes of over 1,100 federal laws as a legal union between...more
The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman is unconstitutional requires employers to treat same-sex couples who are legally married...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) issued two decisions, finding that federal and California laws on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. These decisions will have far-reaching and wide-ranging...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that the Defense of Marriage Act (known as DOMA) is unconstitutional. What does this mean for your company’s employee benefit plans?...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
The ruling on Wednesday by the Supreme Court of the United States, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, will immediately extend to legally married same-sex couples a host of federal...more
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court (the "Court") issued two significant decisions relating to same-sex marriage, both of which will have far-reaching effects on the design and tax treatment of...more
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides a single definition of marriage, as between one man and one woman, for purposes of all federal laws, including the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA....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
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Windsor, ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guaranty for persons of the same...more
The U. S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had established a federal definition of marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman....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
In a closely watched and eagerly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, __ U.S. ___ (June 26, 2013) has overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which limited the definition of...more
Unless you've been securely wedged under a rock over the past 24 hours, you know that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had established a federal definition of...more
Yesterday, in its decision in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (U.S. June 26, 2013), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional. DOMA provided that, for...more