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
Oklahoma remains one of about only a dozen states that recognize common law marriages. Despite the Legislature’s sporadic attempts to effectively abolish such marriages, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has recently determined in...more
Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of August 19 – 23, 2019. August 20, 2019: The IRS released a proposed regulation that provides...more
The Ninth Circuit concluded that a plan fiduciary abused its discretion in denying survival benefits to a pension plan participant’s domestic partner. In so ruling, the Court explained that the plan’s choice of law provisions...more
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
Through Law N° 30907, the Peruvian Government recognized the equivalence between de facto/domestic partners relationships and traditional legal marriage, for purposes of pension benefits under the social security system. ...more
In a historic decision, the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges recently held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires all jurisdictions in all fifty states to: (1) license a...more
On June 23, 2015, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed into law Senate Bill 454, which mandates statewide mandatory paid or unpaid sick leave for virtually all Oregon workers. Oregon joins California, Connecticut and Massachusetts...more
On June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that it is unconstitutional for a state to ban same-sex couples from exercising the fundamental right to marry. As a result of this...more
The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, an administrative body that reviews decisions of the court’s chief judge, recently weighed in on an issue involving same-sex domestic partner health benefits in the post-Windsor world. The...more
In response to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (Ruling) on August 29, 2013, in which the IRS set forth the following...more
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision inUnited States v. Windsor overturning Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raised several questions regarding the federal tax treatment of same-sex couples. (See Holland &...more
We recently sent an E-Alert on what the recent Supreme Court same-sex marriage decisions mean for employers, but what do those decisions mean for the couples themselves in terms of employer and tax benefits?...more
Last month, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act's requirement that only opposite-sex marriages may be recognized for federal law purposes. The Court's decision became effective July 21,...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
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal law purposes to mean opposite-sex marriage, is unconstitutional (United States v. Windsor, 2013 WL...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
In Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal laws to ignore same-sex marriages that are legally entered into...more
With the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, same–sex couples legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, and who reside in such a state, are now governed by...more
On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, holding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages for purposes of...more
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, you may have been wondering, what are all those “federal benefits now afforded to same-sex couples” that I keep hearing about? Well, one huge...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages. ...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307. The Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision) that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal...more
The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision on June 26, 2013 in United States v. Windsor that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional has far reaching implications for employee...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal law that defined "marriage" as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex who is a...more