In the past few years, several states and localities have passed paid sick leave laws. These laws generally require employers to offer workers paid sick leave due to illness or injury, domestic or sexual assault, or care of a family member. Proponents of paid sick leave laws say that they help the local economy by improving workers’ health, safety and welfare and by reducing employee turnover. The ordinance San Antonio passed last year required businesses with more than 15 employees to provide 64 hours of paid sick leave per year. Businesses with 15 or fewer employees were required to provide 48 hours of paid sick leave. Continue Reading San Antonio Temporarily Suspends Paid Sick Leave Law Amidst Legal Challenge from Business Groups
In Lee v. Argent Trust Co., the court dismissed ERISA claims challenging an ESOP stock transaction because the plaintiff, who “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the” ESOP transaction, did not allege that she suffered any injury. This decision is important to educate other courts about economics, particularly in cases where plaintiffs rely on little more than the post-transaction valuation as evidence of supposed overvaluation.
With the uncertainty of the general election just one year away—and change on the horizon—now is the time to take stock of the legal and regulatory environment to prepare your organization for the future.
On September 10 in Boston, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), Fidelity and McDermott invite you to join your peers and colleagues for breakfast and an interactive discussion at 8 am EDT around hot topics in benefits and compensation. Areas of focus will include:
- Congressional action on healthcare—from Rx costs to surprise billing
- Direct contracting for health plans
- Federal and state paid leave
- Lasting impacts of tax reform
- New leveraged ESPP funding alternative
- Student loan repayment plans
- The SECURE Act and what comes next
The federal court affirmed ERISA’s limitations on the types of claims and remedies available under ERISA. This well-reasoned decision affords Congress the deference it deserves by limiting claims and remedies only to those Congress intended to provide in ERISA.
The 2019 ESOP National Conference, an annual gathering for employee owners from all levels, association volunteer leaders and expert professionals, took place May 22–24. Two McDermott partners, Theodore (Ted) M. Becker and Erin Turley, presented three sessions during the conference, the slides of which are available for download on the conference website. See descriptions of the presentations below: Continue Reading On Top of ESOP Developments: Insights from the 42nd ESOP National Conference
The Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services have released final rules removing the prohibition on pairing HRAs with individual health policies. The final rules also allow certain HRAs and other account-based group health plans to qualify as limited excepted benefits. These rules are generally effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020.
A new IRS notice will allow many with chronic health conditions who participate in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) with health savings accounts (HSAs) to receive necessary care that may otherwise be out of financial reach. The notice expands the list of preventive care benefits that can be covered by an HDHP prior to a participant meeting the minimum deductible without disqualifying them from making or receiving HSA contributions.
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Thole v. US Bank, in which the Eighth Circuit held that participants in an overfunded defined benefit pension plan lack standing to sue for fiduciary breaches under ERISA. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case—the third ERISA case accepted by the court this term—could have significant implications for plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries. Many believe that if the Supreme Court rules that the plaintiffs have standing to bring suit, it could encourage a proliferation of litigation against plans where there is no actual impact on participants’ benefits.
Executives are no longer reluctant to lawyer up. News reports on executive/employer contretemps at Papa John’s, Barnes & Noble, Uber and other companies have drawn press attention in the past year; countless other executive/employer disputes have flown below radar.
Underlying these controversies is the executive’s employment agreement, typically the most high-stakes and closely negotiated employment agreements to which companies will contract. Yet, these agreements often contain less clarity and less certainty than either executives or their employers need. Indeed, there appear to be three areas where these contracts could and should be upgraded. Let’s look at each.
Originally published by Law360, February 2019.
There are three focal points in every successorship case: (1) notice to the purchaser; (2) continuity of the business; and (3) the ability of the seller to provide relief.
Reading the tripartite test for successor liability, it is enticing to conclude that a deal is safe. This is what the Greeks called hubris. Remember Oedipus, who also thought he could escape the prophecy of his fate? Even when it appears one of those factors ought to result in a buyer escaping successorship liability, any reading of those factors needs to be grounded in the case law because it sweeps more than a literal reading of those tripartite factors might suggest.
Even a quick look at the case law reveals the magnitude of the doctrine’s scope.
Originally published by Law360, July 2019.