Employee Benefits / Employment Law / HR
Showing 545–560 of 653 results
-
COMPLIANCE ALERT – Upcoming compliance deadlines:
February / March 2010
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 82
Abstract: A brief list of key tax reporting deadlines leading up to April 15.
-
2010 vs. 2009 retirement plan limits
February / March 2010
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 117
Abstract: This brief chart highlights numerous retirement plan limits. Due to the economic decline, the limits for 2010 remained the same as 2009.
-
6 steps to starting a 401(k) plan
February / March 2010
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 846
Abstract: Over the past 20 years, employer-sponsored defined contribution retirement plans have become an increasingly popular way for employees to save for retirement, and 401(k) plans are the most common defined-contribution plans in the public sector. For employers thinking about starting a 401(k) plan, this article provides an overview of the steps they need to take.
-
The retirement benefits road ahead – What employees want, what employers should consider providing
February / March 2010
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1215
Abstract: Just what do employees think about their retirement benefits? And what kinds of retirement benefits can employers offer to attract and retain employees while containing costs? Employees are looking for benefits that will meet retirement, financial and family security needs. This article highlights several industry studies and how, with careful retirement benefits planning, employers can ensure the retention of key and skilled employees.
-
Reduction in force or age-based discrimination?
January / February 2010
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 682
Abstract: When a reduction in force (RIF) affects an employee in a protected class, it’s not unusual for a discrimination claim to arise. When an employee in his mid-50s was among several workers laid off following a merger, he sued on the grounds of age discrimination. The employee tried to show discrimination both directly and indirectly, but the employer prevailed — largely because it had thoroughly analyzed the merits and deficiencies of those who were under consideration for the reduction and was able to support its process through objective evidence.
-
Imputing ugly staff conduct to the employer
January / February 2010
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 702
Abstract: When an African-American woman moved to a company’s Inside Sales department, she found that her co-workers routinely referred to women in sexually and racially derogatory terms. She complained to her superiors, including the company president. Some steps were taken to halt the harassment, yet it persisted. The key question before the court was whether the harassment could be imputable to the employer. Had it done enough to try to stop the abusive behavior?
-
Ignorance isn’t bliss for employer in FMLA lawsuit
January / February 2010
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 511
Abstract: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed into law to allow employees to take unpaid leave when facing a serious health crisis. But when a supervisor is ignorant of its protections, a lawsuit can result, as one company discovered. An employee who had taken six weeks of FMLA leave was dismissed by her supervisor. During the proceedings, the court found the employer’s claims of poor performance unconvincing in light of their previous appraisals, and her supervisor admitted he’d had no prior knowledge of FMLA requirements.
-
SOX and suits – Whistleblower provisions at issue in retaliatory termination case
January / February 2010
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1128
Abstract: Shortly after a husband and wife, both lawyers for the same firm, pointed out that information about a competitor’s patent had not been revealed in the company’s recent merger — thereby possibly causing the company to be overvalued — they found themselves out of a job. They filed a lawsuit claiming retaliatory termination and citing the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). This article discusses the four-prong test that they successfully met to make their case. A sidebar discusses a different case that showed how employers can raise valid defenses to SOX whistleblower retaliation claims.
-
Truth in Lending Act disclosures soon won’t be required for plan loans
Year End 2009
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 330
Abstract: Starting July 1, 2010, retirement plans that offer loans to participants will no longer be required to provide Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures. This short article discusses how this affects plan sponsors.
-
What you should know about measuring fair value before your next audit
Year End 2009
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 606
Abstract: The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and outlines necessary financial disclosures about fair value measurements. Formerly referred to as FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157), ASC 820 significantly changes how companies disclose fair value in their financial statements and how they can fairly value certain assets or liabilities for which no market exists. This article takes a closer look at why plan sponsors should know about ASC 820.
-
Are your distribution consent notices up to date?
Year End 2009
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 764
Abstract: The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) mandated that plan sponsors give qualified retirement plan participants notice about the distribution of their benefits when the distribution requires the participant’s consent. The IRS has recently proposed regulations that provide guidance on the information that plan sponsors must include in this distribution notice. This article explains how the regulations affect the content and timing of the distribution notices to ensure that participants are fully aware of the consequences of taking an immediate distribution and failing to defer.
-
Plan fees and their disclosure – How one sponsor met its fiduciary obligation
Year End 2009
Newsletter: Employee Benefits Update
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 761
Abstract: With economic markets recovering from near record low levels, individuals are watching their investment account activity more carefully than ever. Maybe this is what inspired four retirement plan participants to take a closer look at their investment activity. This article summarizes a class action suit for alleged high mutual fund fees and lack of fee disclosure to plan participants.
-
Employer terminates worker before end of FMLA leave
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 530
Abstract: In New York, a worker was terminated before she’d exhausted her 12 weeks of FMLA leave. The twist: Her doctor had already concluded that she’d have been medically unable to return to work until after the leave ended. Her lawsuit alleged that she’d been denied her substantive rights under the FMLA and had been retaliated against for asserting those rights. The Second Circuit examined her claims. Roberts v. The Health Association, 308 Fed. Appx. 568 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009)
-
Do salary deductions negate overtime exemption?
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 831
Abstract: Employers have long struggled with the exempt vs. nonexempt quandary. When an employee filed a lawsuit alleging that she’d not been paid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Sixth Circuit examined whether an employer’s policy of making deductions from plaintiffs’ wages caused those plaintiffs to lose their exempt status from required overtime payments because they failed the test for salaried status. Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, 566 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009). Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997).
-
At issue: Allegedly discriminatory hiring procedures
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 771
Abstract: When a woman was turned down for a job, she filed a lawsuit after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. In her case, she argued that the interview process was subjective and designed to exclude women and that various statistics regarding the defendant’s workforce and hiring practices created the inference she wasn’t hired because of her gender. This article looks at the Tenth Circuit’s decision, while a sidebar delves more deeply into her claim regarding statistics. Turner v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. Colo. 2009).
-
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act – Supreme Court rules on age as key factor
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 923
Abstract: When age plays only a supporting role in an age discrimination suit, the complexity of the decision deepens. When a 54-year-old administrator was reassigned, and many of his responsibilities were taken on by his younger subordinate, he felt he’d been demoted and filed suit. Eventually, the Supreme Court faced the question of whether a plaintiff must “present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.” But the Court had to first determine whether the burden of persuasion ever shifts to the party defending an alleged ADEA mixed-motives discrimination claim. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (U.S. 2009) Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989)