Department of Labor Regulations Permit State and Local Governments to Set Up Retirement Plans for Private Employers
(Posted on December 20, 2016 by Carol V. Calhoun)

In recent years, several states have adopted laws requiring private (nongovernmental) employers to set up payroll deduction individual retirement accounts, individual retirement annuities, or Roth IRAs (collectively, IRAs) for their employees. Certain localities have also indicated an interest in setting up such programs. ERISA by its terms generally preempts any and all state laws relating to any employee benefit plan regulated by ERISA, other than state laws that regulate insurance, banking, or securities. ERISA § 515, 29 U.S. Code § 1144. Two questions were therefore raised by governmental arrangements covering private employers:

Are the state or local laws setting up such programs preempted by ERISA?
Aare the plans themselves subject to ERISA?

The Department of Labor issued final regulations on August 30, 2016 providing a safe harbor for statewide plans covering private employers. On December 20, 2016, it expanded on those regulations with further regulations providing a safe harbor for plans for private employers operated by local governments. This bulletin discusses how those programs work, and what employers can expect from them.

A Trump Presidency: What Does It Mean for Employee Benefits?
(Posted on November 29, 2016 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Based on both campaign promises and Donald Trump’s plans for his first 100 days, a Trump presidency is likely to make major changes in employee benefits law. The most significant ones are likely to be:

Major changes in the Affordable Care Act (although the timing and extent of such changes are unclear), combined with expansion of health savings accounts.
Postponement or elimination of the recently issued Department of Labor fiduciary regulations.
Loosening of executive compensation rules.
Further cutbacks in IRS guidance and audit activity.
Increased hostility to consideration of noneconomic factors in selecting retirement plan investments.
Diminished enforcement of protections for LGBT employees.
Increased activity at the state level, including establishment of state-sponsored retirement plans for private employers.

These issues, and others of less general concern, are discussed below. Read more.

Department of Labor Issues Final Guidance on Investment Advice to Employee Benefit Plans
(Posted on April 8, 2016 by Carol V. Calhoun)

On April 8, 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued final guidance dealing with investment advice to ERISA plans and their participants. While this guidance does not by its terms apply to governmental and church plans (which are not subject to ERISA), such plans often use DOL guidance as an indication of best practices which they will follow. Moreover, the DOL suggests that a breach of contract claim may be available to enforce the standards with respect to individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”), which are not subject to ERISA. While the DOL has no authority to regulate governmental and church plans, it has laid out a road map which state courts may use to impose liability on governmental and church plans under a breach of contract theory.

Family & Medical Leave Act regulations protect same-sex spouses, regardless of domicile
(Posted on February 23, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, the Department of Labor announced that for purposes of the spousal protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), it would recognize a same-sex marriage only if it was legal in the jurisdiction of the couple’s domicile. It has now reversed that position, issuing final regulations which recognize a marriage a) within the United States, if it was valid in the state in which it took place, and b) outside of the United States, if it was valid in the jurisdiction in which it took place and if it could have been entered into in at least one state. The effective date for the final rule was March 27, 2015.

Update (June 26, 2015): This rule is in line with the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which has now recognized same-sex marriages nationwide.

Employee Benefits Effects of Treasury, IRS and Department of Labor Announcements That All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes
(Posted on February 23, 2015 by Carol V. Calhoun)

This post was updated on June 26, 2015 to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage.

The Treasury Department and the IRS announced on August 29, 2013 that all legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for federal tax purposes. On September 18, 2013, the Department of Labor took the same position for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA“). The announcements and corresponding revenue ruling (Rev. Rul. 2013-17) apply only to marriages legal in the jurisdiction in which performed. They do not apply to civil unions or domestic partnerships. (Of course, parties to a civil union or domestic partnership could still obtain the benefits of the announcement and revenue ruling by getting legally married.) The Treasury and IRS position was later reinforced by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage.

Because employee benefit plans are extensively regulated by federal law, this announcement means that all employers will be required to recognize such marriages for many employee benefits purposes. Conversely, employers in states that treat civil unions or domestic partnerships as if they were marriages will nevertheless be forbidden from treating such arrangements as marriages for certain employee benefits purposes. However, the precise impact will depend on whether the plan is subject to ERISA or whether it is a governmental or church plan exempt from ERISA. The chart below sets forth areas in which the announcement will affect the operation of different types of plans.

If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep Your Insurance… At Least For Another Year
(Posted on November 14, 2013 by Carol V. Calhoun)

In the wake of negative publicity about individuals and small businesses losing their existing health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health & Human Services, in consultation with the Treasury Department and the Department of Labor, has provided transitional relief. The transitional relief applies only if certain conditions are met, as follows:

Department of Labor Announces That Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For ERISA Purposes, Regardless of the Laws of the Employer’s or Employee’s State
(Posted on September 18, 2013 by Carol V. Calhoun)

The Department of Labor has now issued Technical Release No. 2013-04 (September 18, 2013), in which it announces that for purposes of Title 1 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), the term “spouse” will be read to refer to any individuals who are lawfully married under any state law, including individuals married to a person of the same sex who were legally married in a state that recognizes such marriages, but who are domiciled in a state that does not recognize such marriages. Similarly, the term “marriage” will be read to include a same-sex marriage that is legally recognized as a marriage under any state law. (The latter provision is apparently necessary to deal with marriages that are performed abroad.) Civil unions and domestic partnerships will not, however, be treated as marriages. This corresponds with the position earlier taken by the IRS.

The announcement applies only for purposes of ERISA, however. Face Sheet 28F indicates that the Department of Labor will treat a party to same-sex marriage as a spouse for purposes of the Family & Medical Leave Act only if the state where the employee resides recognizes the marriage.

Who is a spouse? Different federal agencies take differing approaches after Windsor
(Posted on August 13, 2013 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Since the publication of this article, Treasury and the IRS have announced that any legal same-sex marriage will be recognized for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether the couple’s home state recognizes the marriage. See this post. The Department of Labor has also issued final regulations under the Family & Medical Leave Act which recognize a marriage, regardless of the couple’s domicile, if a) it occurred within the United States, and it was valid in the state in which it took place, and b) it occurred outside of the United States, if it was valid in the jurisdiction in which it took place and it could have been entered into in at least one state.

Federal law requires that employer plans determine marital status in a variety of contexts, ranging from requirements that ERISA-covered retirement plans provide spousal death benefits (e.g., a qualified joint and survivor annuity, qualified preretirement survivor annuity, or payment of the participant’s account balance to the spouse) to COBRA (health care continuation) rights in the event of a divorce or separation. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, it is clear that a same-sex married couple must be treated the same as an opposite-sex married couple for these purposes. But when will a same-sex couple be treated as married? Weeks after the Windsor decision, the few federal agencies that have issued guidance have taken wildly disparate approaches.

Speech outline, “Federal Law Update, 2003-2004,” now available
(Posted on October 18, 2004 by Carol V. Calhoun)

The outline of the speech, originally presented on October 12, 2004, at the 18th Annual Convention of the National Council on Teacher Retirement, is available by clicking here. Read more

Department of Labor Issues Guidance Regarding Missing Participants in Defined Contribution Plans
(Posted on September 30, 2004 by Carol V. Calhoun)

Field Assistance Bulletin 2004-02 gives guidance on what a plan fiduciary needs to do in order to fulfill its fiduciary obligations under ERISA with respect to: (1) locating a missing participant of a terminated defined contribution plan; and (2) distributing an account balance when efforts to communicate with a missing participant fail to secure a distribution election.