In a presentation at McDermott’s Employment and Employee Benefits Forum, Ted Becker and Chris Scheithauer explored the various ways that disgruntled employees file lawsuits with plaintiffs’’ lawyers. Lawsuits have been brought in cases alleging, imprudence in the management of plans, challenging fees, involving company stock, actuarial equivalence and more. They used recent cases such as, NYU, American Century Services and IBM, as examples of the various types of lawsuits and the important lessons employers can take away from them. In addition, they provided attendees with key strategies to minimize exposure to lawsuits, including demonstrating a thoughtful and deliberative decision-making process.

Looking ahead to 2019, they touched on ERISA issues to watch for including, venue/forum selection clauses in plan documents, arbitration agreements and impact on fiduciary duty claims, statute of limitations and burden of proof issues.

View the full presentation.

In an Information Letter dated February 27, 2019, the Department of Labor (DOL) clarified that an ERISA plan must include any procedures for designating authorized representatives in the plan’s claims procedure and summary plan description (SPD) or in a separate document that accompanies the SPD. In response to a request by a patient advocate and health care claim recovery expert for plan participants and beneficiaries, the DOL reiterated that the claims procedure regulations permit authorized representatives to receive notifications in connections with an ERISA plan’s claim and appeal determinations, and noted that a plan’s claims procedure cannot prevent claimants from choosing who will act as their representative for purposes of a claim and/or appeal. ERISA plan sponsors should review plan documents to ensure that the applicable documents clearly outline any steps a participant or beneficiary must take to validly designate an authorized representative under the plan.

In a presentation at McDermott’s Employment and Employee Benefits Forum, Jeffrey Holdvogt discussed qualified plans, including student loan repayment benefits and the rise of DOL/IRS/PBGC plan activity. He also commented on the scrutiny on plan governance and fiduciary process materials. He addressed the legal challenges and mandates, such as state laws protecting against balance billing by out-of-network providers.

View the full presentation.

The District of Massachusetts court struck the plaintiffs’ jury-trial demand in their ERISA complaint for damages and equitable relief against 401(k) plan fiduciaries. The court followed the “great weight of authority” in ruling that there is no right to trial by jury in ERISA actions for breach of fiduciary duty.

Access the full article.

In a presentation at McDermott’s Employment and Employee Benefits Forum, Andrew Liazos discussed areas of focus for Section 162(m) and third-party loan funding for employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs). He also provided insight on the new SEC final rule on hedging, and the 21 percent excise tax on pay over $1 million to covered employees at tax-exempt organizations.

View the full presentation.

In a presentation at McDermott’s Employment and Employee Benefits Forum, our lawyers discuss the patchwork of state and local laws surrounding pay equity for similarly situated employees doing the same job. Particularly in California, new developments have emerged further clarifying pay equity laws. For best practices, they recommend:

  • Establishing compensation ranges across substantially similar jobs
  • Taking into account job-related factors when establishing and evaluating employee compensation
  • Conducting pay equity analysis under privilege
  • Performing a thoughtful time analysis and remedial action

View the full presentation.

Join us Friday, March 15, for an interactive discussion on the implications of providing fringe benefits to your employees. Samantha Souza and David Fuller will talk about the tax impact of seemingly insignificant benefits and provide suggestions for avoiding negative consequences in the future.

Join our lively 45-minute discussion, where we’ll discuss the following commonly provided fringe benefits:

  • Health Club Memberships
  • Tickets to Sporting Events
  • Tuition Assistance
  • And More!

Friday, March 15, 2019

10:00 – 10:45 am PST
11:00 – 11:45 am MST
12:00 – 12:45 pm CST
1:00 – 1:45 pm EST

Register Now.

Join us on March 7 in Chicago for our annual Benefits Emerging Leaders Working Group, which provides benefit professionals with tools to better serve employees in an ever-changing benefits landscape.

Our presentations will tackle the latest benefits hot topics and best practice solutions and will be supplemented with important networking opportunities aimed to connect tomorrow’s benefit leaders with a broad network of professionals.

Speakers from The Art Institute of Chicago, Alera Group Inc. and McDermott will lead interactive discussions around a range of topics, including:

  • Affordable Care Act (ACA) Penalties – Marketplace Letters
  • Investment Committee Meetings – Red Flags and Best Practices
  • Developments in Parental and Caregiver Leaves – A Case Study Approach
  • Legislative Rundown – What’s Happening in Washington
  • Around the Horn – A Group Discussion

Register Now.

New digital health regulations arose at the federal and state level in 2018, bolstering the existing legal framework to further support and encourage digital health adoption in the context of care coordination and the move to value-based payment. McDermott’s 2018 Digital Health Year in Review: Focus on Care Coordination and Reimbursement report – the second in a four-part series – highlighted these developments within the digital health landscape. These efforts brought changes to coverage of telehealth and other virtual care services, as well as information gathering for regulatory reform, and can help bridge the gap between research, funding and implementation as regulations build a framework within which companies can deploy their products, receive reimbursement and demonstrate value to patients. Here we outline digital health developments from the second half of 2018 and how they can help drive digital health forward in 2019. For a closer look at key care coordination and reimbursement developments that shaped digital health in 2018, along with planning considerations and predictions for the digital health frontier in the year ahead, download our full report.

To view the first report in the series, 2018 Digital Health Year in Review: Focus on Data, click here.

 

Several large employers are disputing how much money the New York Times owes a union multiemployer pension fund. Recently, six companies—including US Foods Inc. and United Natural Foods Inc.—filed an amicus brief supporting the New York Times in its case before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ruprecht Co., an Illinois meat processor, also filed its own brief in support of the New York Times.

Under the Employer Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), when determining an employer’s withdrawal liability, the actuarial assumptions and methods must “offer the actuary’s best estimate of the anticipated experience under the plan.” The underlying issue in this case involves an actuarial method called the “Segal Blend,” which often is used to value unfunded vested benefits and calculate withdrawal liability (an exit fee) from a union multiemployer pension plan. Under the Segal Blend, the actuary blends the multiemployer plan’s assumed interest rate on investments with a lower interest rate used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for terminating plans. Many multiemployer pension plans commonly use the Segal Blend to calculate an employer’s unfunded liability and payment upon exiting the multiemployer plan (known as “withdrawal liability”). These large employers claim that using the Segal Blend results in an artificially lower interest rate, which in turn results in larger employer withdrawal liability and larger amounts an employer must pay to exit the multiemployer pension plan.

Continue Reading Piling On: Corporations Support the New York Times in Multiemployer Pension Calculation Dispute