US Supreme Court
Subscribe to US Supreme Court's Posts

Webinar Replay: SECURE 2.0 and the Impacts of Employer Matching for Student Loan Payments

Student loan debt is set once again to impact millions of American workers. Fortunately, starting next year, employers will have new ways to help employees navigate student loan debt. Provisions of the SECURE 2.0 Act will allow employers to provide employer-matching contributions based on their employees’ qualified student loan repayments outside the plan.

In this webinar, McDermott’s Jeffrey M. Holdvogt and Teal N. Trujillo were joined by Tom Robertson C(k)P® of Graystone Consulting for a discussion exploring how organizations can provide this exciting new benefit to their workforces and leverage this important tool to increase employee satisfaction and retention.

Topics included:

  • Reasons why your organization should consider student loan debt/repayment benefits
  • Options available to employers to provide tax-advantaged benefits related to student loan debt and repayment
  • Key aspects of the SECURE 2.0 Act related to student loan repayment benefits as part of an employee retirement plan
  • Questions, challenges and tips for employers implementing a SECURE 2.0 student loan benefit in their retirement plans

Access the webinar.

Access the slides.




SECURE 2.0: The Impacts of Employer Matching for Student Loan Payments

Following the US Supreme Court’s rejection of substantial portions of the Biden administration’s plans for student loan debt relief, and with the end of the student loan repayment moratorium in sight, student loan debt is set once again to impact millions of American workers. Fortunately, starting next year, employers will have new ways to help employees navigate student loan debt. Provisions of the SECURE 2.0 Act will allow employers to provide employer-matching contributions based on their employees’ qualified student loan repayments outside the plan.

On September 12, 2023, join McDermott Will & Emery lawyers Jeffrey M. Holdvogt and Teal N. Trujillo as well as Tom Robertson C(k)P® of Graystone Consulting for a live webinar exploring how your organization can provide this exciting new benefit to your workforce and leverage it to increase employee satisfaction and retention.

Covered topics will include:

  • Reasons why your organization should consider student loan debt/repayment benefits
  • Options available to employers to provide tax-advantaged benefits related to student loan debt and repayment
  • Key aspects of the SECURE 2.0 Act related to student loan repayment benefits as part of an employee retirement plan
  • Questions, challenges and tips for employers implementing a SECURE 2.0 student loan benefit in their retirement plans

Register here.




How Dobbs Has Changed the Data Privacy Landscape

Companies are taking a fresh look at their privacy policies in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. According to this Law360 article, policymakers are putting more pressure on companies to tighten their restrictions on collecting and disclosing personal health and location data.

Access the article.




From Clinic to Courtroom: Legislation and Litigation Limiting Prescription Practices

On April 20, 2023, McDermott’s Alden Bianchi was a speaker at the ERISA Industry Committee’s 2023 Annual Spring Policy Conference, which was held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The panel in which he participated was entitled “From Clinic to Courtroom – Legislation and Litigation Limiting Prescription Practices,” and it covered three main topics: state regulation of telehealth; the regulation of specialty pharmacy supply chains and delivery measures (“brown bagging,” “white bagging” and “clear bagging”); and state-level efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) following the US Supreme Court’s 2020 Rutledge decision, which held that an Arkansas law regulating the costs of prescription drugs was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Here are some of the program’s key takeaways and predictions:

  • While telehealth is here to stay, the high cost of Medicare reimbursements presents an immediate barrier to widespread adoption, and the particulars of how telehealth will be regulated will be left largely to the states.
  • The battle over the delivery of specialty prescription drugs is heating up as PBMs seek to capture some of the margins previously available only to providers. State laws regulating pharmacies and pharmacists will be at the center of the battle, and future legislative efforts will likely be subject to challenge.
  • State legislatures have read the Rutledge decision broadly in ways that virtually guarantee a good deal of future litigation. It might take as long as a decade, and it may well take more than one trip to the Supreme Court before plans, issuers, providers, state legislators and regulators, and other stakeholders have a reliable understanding of the contours of ERISA preemption in the pharmacy context.

Accompanying this post are copies of Mr. Bianchi’s panel materials, including:




OCR Issues Proposed Rule to Modify HIPAA Privacy Rule to Include Explicit Protections for Reproductive Healthcare

On April 12, 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking detailing its proposal to modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule comes as a part of the Biden administration’s response to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The Proposed Rule would provide special protections for protected health information (PHI) related to reproductive healthcare. Following the Dobbs decision, many healthcare providers expressed concerns that PHI related to reproductive healthcare may be sought by state and local governments for use in criminal, civil or administrative investigations or proceedings. OCR noted that such compelled uses and disclosures of PHI could have a chilling effect on lawfully obtained healthcare and erode trust in confidential communications between a patient and provider. Additionally, providers could elect to leave out critical details from a patient’s medical record if they fear the information could later be used by a state or local government actor against the patient.

Stakeholders may submit comments on the proposed rule on or before June 16, 2023.

Read more here.




What the Potential Shutdown of Biden’s Loan Forgiveness Plan Could Mean for Plan Sponsors

As the US Supreme Court deliberates on the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness plan, what is the recommended course of action for plan sponsors regarding student loan repayment programs? In this PLANSPONSOR article, McDermott Partner Jeffrey M. Holdvogt offers insight into student loan debt benefits through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.

Access the article.




US Supreme Court Rules Highly Compensated Employee Is Not Exempt from Overtime

On February 22, 2023, the US Supreme Court held in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt that an employee who was paid nearly $1,000 each day he worked was not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and therefore owed overtime for the work he did. This case turned on an interpretation of the FLSA regulations, which exempt from the overtime requirement certain bona fide executive, administrative and professional employees.

Read more here.




Respect for Marriage Act Would Protect Same-Sex Couples’ Company Benefits

The Respect for Marriage Act would preserve the company benefits of same-sex couples. The legislation, which passed the US Senate on November 29, was inspired by concerns that the US Supreme Court might reconsider its landmark same-sex marriage decision.

In this SHRM articleMcDermott Partner Todd Solomon noted that federal and state law no longer distinguish between same-sex or opposite-sex marriages.

“Same-sex spouses must be extended spousal benefit coverage by employers” for fully insured health plans, Solomon said.

Access the article.




Employers Seek Clarity on Reproductive Healthcare Benefits Litigation Following EEOC Commissioner Filing

Following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, many employers extended travel benefits to women residing in states where abortion or reproductive health procedures may now be unlawful. Recently, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner Andrea Lucas filed a Commissioner’s Charge against at least three companies alleging that doing so violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Although these charges are not public, it’s believed they mirror a letter that Sharon Fast Gustafson, the former EEOC General Counsel, recently sent en masse to employers around the country also alleging such travel programs violate federal anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC has since issued a statement that Gustafson’s views are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the EEOC.

When Title VII was amended in 1978 by the Pregnancy Act amendments, language was added requiring pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions be treated equally with other medical conductions under an employer’s “fringe benefit programs.” Lucas asserts that providing travel benefits for those seeking abortions provides preferential treatment to women, thus constituting gender discrimination. Her contention is also that travel benefits further implicate religious discrimination by favoring those who terminate pregnancies over those who, for religious reasons, carry a child to term. Her final contention is that the provision of travel benefits violates the ADA, which she claims requires parity of benefits for those with physical disabilities.

Employers are now asking whether Lucas’ and Gustafson’s position may be the beginning of litigation by the EEOC or private plaintiffs and whether they can take measures to address the legal arguments being raised.

First, it is doubtful the EEOC will be suing. While Title VII and the ADA authorize a single commissioner to file a Commissioner’s Charge, that Charge will be investigated like any other Charge of Discrimination. If cause is found, EEOC procedure requires in cases garnering public attention (which this most certainly is) that litigation may only be commenced if a majority of the Commissioners (minus the Commissioner who brought the Charge) vote in favor of doing so. In the absence of a quorum, then only the General Counsel of the EEOC may initiate suit. At this time, Lucas would not appear to have such votes.

Second, employers can and should draft around these contentions to prepare for private suits. Specifically, such travel benefits should cover not only abortion and/or reproductive health, but also all covered services or procedures that are unavailable within a covered individual’s state of residence or area, regardless of the individual’s gender, pregnancy or childbirth status, or disability status. This would make the benefits “available” to everyone.

Finally, there is a suggestion that, even with such drafting, this travel benefit will still be utilized primarily by non-Christian women, thus supporting a disparate impact claim based on religious discrimination. This is an overreach. Title VII claims require an adverse employment action such as an employee who requests but is denied a travel benefit due [...]

Continue Reading




Legal Risks Loom For Employers Protecting Abortion Access

US employers are taking steps to provide abortion access to workers despite threats from anti-abortion activists and conservative lawmakers. In this Law360 article, McDermott’s Sarah Raaii said that “we’re certainly continuing to monitor” threats against employers.

“And we’re now in the position — really an unprecedented position for employers — of having to potentially look at 50 different states’ very specifically written laws regarding reproductive health care,” Raaii said. “Some states require some type of coverage, some states prohibit it. So it’s become a lot more burdensome for employers.”

Access the article.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Top ranked chambers 2022
US leading firm 2022