There has been a flurry of class action lawsuits and settlements relating to the deficiency of required election notices under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). The notices provide employees and their beneficiaries who participate in an employer’s group health plan with the option to elect to continue their coverage following a COBRA qualifying event. A recent class action lawsuit illustrates the stakes and provides some valuable lessons.
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held in Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Mulready (PCMA) that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and Medicare Part D preempted several provisions of Oklahoma law regulating pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacy networks. Left unchallenged, these provisions threaten the ability of employers and Medicare Advantage organizations to design uniform nationwide health plans. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in favor of PCMA overturned a lower court decision that caused great concern about the ability of states to indirectly dictate the design of plans governed by ERISA and Medicare Part D.
In an acknowledgment of uncommon market conditions and their corresponding effect on defined benefit pension plan funding, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the PBGC) provided a welcome one-time waiver for some underfunded pension plans under Section 4010 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). However, to qualify for the waiver, pension plan sponsors still need to timely notify the PBGC.
If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (as suggested by a leaked draft on May 2), employers who want to provide abortion coverage to employees and their families could encounter serious challenges. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott’s Sarah G. Raaii noted that employers that provide travel expenses for abortions might encounter resistance from state laws like a Texas statue that permits citizens to sue abortion providers for abortions performed around six weeks.
“If a state wants to interpret this very broadly—and it seems that some of them have indicated that they do—to really just punish anyone involved even peripherally with providing abortion in the states, employers could potentially be at risk.” Raaii said.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015 directs the US Department of Labor (DOL) to make annual inflation adjustments to specified Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations. The increased penalties generally apply to reporting and disclosure failures if the penalty is assessed after January 15, 2022, and if the violation occurred after November 2, 2015.
On February 10, 2022, the US Senate passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the Act), a bipartisan bill that invalidates and renders unenforceable predispute arbitration agreements in any case alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment. The US House of Representatives passed a version of the bill on February 7, 2022. US President Joe Biden is expected to sign the bill into law soon.
Can employers mandate some employees get the vaccine and not others? Is there an obligation to consider requiring a COVID-19 test before coming back to work? What are the potential workers’ compensation claims relating to possible adverse reactions to a vaccine? Should employers mandate vaccinations?
In this article, McDermott partners Carole Spink, Joseph Mulherin, Kathleen Quinn and Troy Van Dongen answer common employer questions about the COVID-19 vaccine.
A recent ruling from a New Jersey federal district court gives ammunition to providers fighting to stop insurers from engaging in cross-plan offsetting, a common billing practice where health insurers attempt to claw back overpaid claim money from one patient by withholding payment from another patient in a different health plan.
The ruling—which found that the practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)—could lead to more lawsuits and changes to plan documents. McDermott partner Judith Wethall said in a recent Bloomberg Law article the ruling was more significant than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s 2019 ruling in Peterson v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
A significant issue facing many business owners is the impact of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. This is most common, but not exclusive to, unionized businesses. McDermott Partner and Global Head of the Firm’s Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Practice Group Todd Solomon joins Domenic Rinaldi, owner and managing partner of Sun Acquisitions, for a recent episode of the M&A Unplugged Podcast to talk about multiemployer pension plans and discuss proactive steps owners can take to get ahead of future issues regarding pension participants.
The most obvious potential conflict of interest for advisers setting up or serving pooled employer plans is if their practice is affiliated with the investments being selected—but there are other potential pitfalls to acknowledge.
In a recent article, Erin Turley, a partner with McDermott Will & Emery, said a potential conflict of interest for advisers to PEPs would be if they were acting as either a 3(21) or 3(38) fiduciary to help select investments and were paid from plan assets.
Subscribe
