|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Article Index » employee benefits: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Same-Sex Marriages: What Do They Mean for Your Benefit Plans?Fisher & Phillips, LLP - July 03, 2008 On May 15 of this year, the California Supreme Court held that same-sex couples must be permitted to legally marry in California. According to the decision, the failure to designate the relationship of a same-sex couple as a marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. When the decision takes effect on June 14, 2008, California will join Massachusetts as the only states that recognize same-sex marriages. Report Link You’ve Gotta Have Heart.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - July 03, 2008 Last month President Bush signed into law the Heroes Earnings and Assistance and Relief Act of 2008 (HEART or the Heroes Act). The Act's provisions impact benefits under 401(k) plans. In addition, Health FSAs, group health plans, and cafeteria plans may also be impacted by some Heroes Act changes. Report Link Posting Notice of SPD on Firm Intranet Site may not be Sufficient to Meet ERISA Requirements.Ford & Harrison LLP - July 01, 2008 Employers increasingly rely on electronic methods to communicate with employees, keep them informed of company policies and even to provide them with benefits documents as required by federal law. While this is usually a convenient and rapid method of communicating with employees, especially those working in geographically diverse locations, employers should make sure that they comply with federal regulations when providing notice of certain benefits as required by the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA). Report Link Dual-Role Administrators, Conflicts of Interest, and ERISA’s Deferential Standard of Review.Jones Walker - June 30, 2008 The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) permits a person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan the opportunity to challenge that denial in federal court. Under ERISA, if an administrator has been given discretion to determine eligibility for benefits under the terms of the benefit plan in question, federal courts can overturn eligibility determinations only if they find that the administrator has “abused its discretion.” ERISA jurisprudence has long recognized that if an administrator is operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict of interest must be weighed as a factor in determining whether the administrator’s decision to deny benefits was an abuse of discretion. When the entity that administers an employee benefit plan is also the entity that funds the plan, the courts view that as giving rise to a conflict of interest. Report Link The Supreme Court Considers Conflicts of Interest in Benefit Claims ProceduresLittler Mendelson, P.C. - June 30, 2008 On Thursday, June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Metropolitan Life v. Glenn, holding that where an insurance company both determines an appeal for ERISA benefits, and pays that claim, a conflict of interest as described in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch is presented. Where the language of a plan grants the administrator discretionary review of claims, this conflict will be taken into account as a "factor" to be weighed in determining whether judicial deference should still be accorded to the administrator's decision. Report Link Supreme Court Rules on Judicial Review of ERISA Benefit Claims.Vedder Price - June 26, 2008 On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court
issued a fractured (5–1–1–2) decision in
MetLife Insurance Co. v. Glenn, ruling
that employee benefi t plan
administrators who both make benefi t
decisions and pay benefi t claims under
a plan covered by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) operate under a confl ict of
interest that must be weighed as a
factor upon judicial review. However,
the Court failed to provide a uniform and
predictable framework for judicial review
of confl icted decisions, holding instead
that the weight given to the confl ict will
vary according to the particular “facts
and circumstances” of each case. The
ruling has implications for insurers and
sponsors of self-funded plans. Report Link Supreme Court Complicates Judicial Review of "Dual-Role" Discretionary Benefit Decisions.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 26, 2008 The United States Supreme Court has preserved the legal standard governing how courts review the discretionary claims denials of insurance companies which would otherwise pay the benefits out of their own assets and, therefore, have an interest in denying the benefit. However, the Court may have effectively eroded the discretion of claim decisionmakers because it held that lower courts should consider the conflict of interest in making their decisions, but left the courts to their own devices in determining how they should go about doing it. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, No. 06-923 (June 19, 2008). This decision will significantly complicate the claims determination process of a large number of plans and, among other things, potentially open the door to costly discovery and extensive judicial review of whether an actual conflict of interest affected any part of the claims denial. Report Link DOL Issues Guidance On Qualified Default Investment Alternatives.Ogletree Deakins - June 25, 2008 Employers that have adopted a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) for their 401(k) plans now have a new resource to help work through potential problems, including issues related to investments that predate the QDIA rules, the coordination of QDIA and other plan-related notices, grandfathered stable value funds, and so-called "round trip" restrictions. Report Link Supreme Court’s Anticlimactic Decision in Glenn does not Streamline ERISA Litigation.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 23, 2008 Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn (June 19, 2008), which many had hoped would provide more clarity with regard to a court’s role in reviewing a plan administrator’s decision denying benefits, where the plan administrator also pays benefits under the plan. However, the Court’s decision in Glenn merely “elucidates” the standards announced by the Court in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989), which held that a conflict of interest is a factor to be considered in determining whether to affirm a plan administrator’s benefits determination. The Court did clarify that an entity administering an employee benefit plan, which both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays those benefits out of its own pocket, operates under an inherent conflict of interest, a question that was not specifically addressed by the Court’s earlier decision in Bruch. Report Link New Supreme Court Glenn Decision Requires Courts to Consider Employer Conflicts in ERISA Benefit Denial Decisions.McGuire Woods LLP - June 23, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an insurer who both paid and decided ERISA disability benefits had a conflict of interest that courts must consider in determining whether the insurer abused its discretion in denying a claim, even without evidence that the conflict influenced the decision. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, No. 06-923 (S. Ct., June 19, 2008).
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 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. | ||
Federal Article Feeds