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
In an unpublished decision dated May 16, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held that a plan administrator abused its discretion by denying surviving spouse benefits under an ERISA retirement benefit plan to a participant’s domestic...more
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires all 50 states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state....more
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require states to allow same-sex marriage and to...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
A major reason that employee benefits, such as employer- provided healthcare and retirement plans, exist is that they provide a tax-advantaged way for an employer to provide additional compensation to an employee, her spouse,...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Windsor, the requirement that an ERISA health plan provide health coverage for same-sex spouses has often hinged on whether an employee benefit plan was insured or...more
The employee benefits issues to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court continue to be of great significance to plan sponsors and fiduciaries. This month we review the Court's employee benefit decisions from 2013 and also...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
This month we return to the age-old question – "What makes someone a fiduciary?" As Nicole Eichberger explains, the Seventh Circuit reminded us that the meaning of a "functional fiduciary" depends on exercise/conduct in...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
As we previously reported, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act provides...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
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) yesterday announced that same-sex couples legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage will be treated as married for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security...more
Editor's Overview - Health care issues make the headlines once again in this month's ERISA Litigation Newsletter. Tzvia Feiertag first provides practical and timely tips for insured ERISA health plan sponsors on...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Windsor v. United States holding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional. This decision will have implications for...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
Earlier this summer we sent you an Alert concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling (United States v. Windsor) regarding same-sex marriage. This decision declared, as unconstitutional, Section 3 of the federal...more
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), in which the Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was unconstitutional, same-sex...more
Obergefell v. Kasich and Cozen O’Connor v. Tobits may reflect a growing trend of courts and other bodies to recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated elsewhere even if the couple’s current state of residence does not...more
The United States Supreme Court significantly changed the treatment of same-sex spouses under qualified retirement plans in United States v. Windsor. ...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
Health Care Reform Employer Mandate and Reporting Provisions Delayed until 2015 - The U.S. Department of the Treasury unexpectedly announced on July 2, 2013 the delay of the employer shared responsibility ‘pay or play’...more