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
Timely Topics - By Shannon B. Hartsfield - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Jan. 18, 2018, the creation of a new division within its Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR is described as...more
The Supreme Court in Walker v Innospec Limited, overturning the Court of Appeal, has decided that the exemption for service prior to December 2005 from the requirement for occupational pension schemes to give survivors'...more
This past June, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), that the Fourteenth Amendment (i) requires a state’s civil marriage laws to apply to same-sex couples on the...more
Over the past two years, there has been a sea change in the treatment of same-sex spouses under both federal and state law. Now that federal law, and the laws in 35 states and Washington, D.C., recognize marriage equality for...more
Now that some of the dust has settled on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Windsor, employers who haven’t done so already should take immediate steps to review their retirement plan documents and administrative...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
The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have issued Notice 2014-9 (the “Notice”) and related Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) providing much anticipated guidance on the application of the Supreme...more
On June 26, 2013, when the Supreme Court determined that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the tax and benefit plan implications were unclear. Later, in Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the...more
In the summer of 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. v. Windsor, striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and eliminating the requirement that federal law recognize only marriages...more
The following are the most significant employee benefits-related legal developments that occurred in December of 2013. At the beginning of 2013, after considering feedback from our clients and contacts who work in the...more
Year-End Amendments - The month of December is a bit different in 2013. Typically, we mark this time scrambling to amend 401(k), profit sharing, and money purchase plans in order to maintain their tax-qualified status....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
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
Earlier this summer, following the Supreme Court's issuance of the landmark case, United States v. Windsor, which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional, we published an Executive Alert...more
For many years, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage under federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. In June 2013, however, in the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the...more
In the first reported ERISA decision post-Windsor, the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held (in Cozen O’Connor, P.C. v. Jennifer Tobits) that a same-sex spouse is to be treated as the decedent’s...more
After a year-long battle, Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which denied federal recognition of all state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, and California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage are both...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA provided that, for the purpose of any federal law, "marriage"...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
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, 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