Employment Law Information Network
Google
 
Web www.elinfonet.com
Main Navigation
Federal Law Articles
State Law Articles
HR Newsletter
HR Guidebook
HR Policy
HR Seminars
Employment Contracts
Employment Law Forums
Employment Law Blog
Employment Laws
Employee Rights
Workplace Headlines
Federal Article Feeds Federal Article Feeds
State Article Feeds State Article Feeds
Get Our FREE Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Email:
Over 8,300 Subscribers! More Information

Friday, March 07, 2008

Week In Review (March 6, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=12749”>LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc. Supreme Court Establishes Fiduciary Liability in the Context of Individual Account Plans.</A>
Last week, the United States Supreme Court expanded the remedies available for fiduciary breach claims brought under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. Under a long-standing decision (Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell), any relief granted for fiduciary breach was required to benefit the entire plan, rather than an individual participant. In the context of investment-related breaches, the “entire plan” rule effectively limited fiduciary claims to defined benefit and similar insurance plans, under which all benefits are funded from a common asset pool. In LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., the Supreme Court for the first time acknowledged the current preponderance of defined contribution or individual account plans, such as 401(k) plans. The Court concluded that the “entire plan” rule should not be construed to preclude relief for fiduciary breach when a participant’s “plan” is effectively an account balance. Citing ERISA Section 404(c) as support, the Court noted that Congress must have intended fiduciaries of individual account plans to be liable for breach in the investment context.
Located On: Phelps Dunbar LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New York’s Highest Court Addresses Mandatory Service Charges.</A>
According to New York state’s highest court, under the state’s wage and hour law, an employer cannot withhold from its employees any portion of a mandatory service charge that is added to a customer’s bill unless the employer makes it clear to the customer that it is retaining some or all of the charge.
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Want a Better Job or Higher Salary? Live Here[/url]
ABC News - March 03, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 03/07 at 08:52 AM
Employment Law • (0) CommentsPermalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
 
Terms of Use  |  Privacy  |  Advertising  |  About  |  Contact  |  For Law Firms  |  Partners

Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.

The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.

This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations.  As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law.  None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice.  The information should not be relied upon for legal advice.  We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created.  Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege.  If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area.  If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association.

All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners.