Today, the DOL announced publication of a final rule that expands the ability of retirement plans to deliver participant disclosures online or via email by establishing a new, voluntary safe harbor that allows the use of electronic media as a default for participant disclosures. The final rule is in response to the previously reported October, 2019 proposed rule which allowed plan administrators to notify retirement plan participants that required disclosures, such as SPDs, will be posted on a website. Here are some key points of the final rule:
In Notice 2020-29 released on May 12, 2020, the IRS provides expanded options for participants with respect to 2020 mid-year election changes and also provides increased flexibility to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020. Although the temporary relief under Notice 2020-29 was issued in response to the COVID-19 health emergency, the relief is not limited to individuals affected by the pandemic. Specifically:
On May 4, 2020, the IRS issued Q&As on the coronavirus-related distribution and loan provisions added by Section 2022 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). Section 2022 of the CARES Act (discussed in the March Monthly Minute) temporarily:
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provides broad-spectrum relief for participants and plan sponsors of qualified plans and expanded benefits for participants in group health plans including the following:
- For defined contribution plans including 401(k) plans, the changes include expanded in-service distribution provisions up to $100,000, relief from early withdrawal penalty taxes, a temporary increase in 401(k) plan loan limits to $100,000, and relief from minimum required distributions for the remainder of 2020. The adoption of any optional provisions may require plan amendment. It appears amendments would not have to be adopted until at least December 31, 2022.
- There are also special rules related to funding defined benefit plans.
- There are several provisions that impact group health plan coverage requirements.
The post below provides a summary of certain changes of particular interest to plan sponsors.
We previously reported on Retirement Plans Committee of IBM et al. v. Larry W. Jander, in our June 2019 newsletter which was an employer stock-drop case from the Second Circuit.
There’s good news and bad news under President Trump’s new spending package, which includes the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (“FCAA”).
As reported in our June 2019 newsletter, the Ninth Circuit in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma addressed when a participant has actual knowledge of a potential fiduciary breach.
Plans and issuers will be required to use the new 2021 Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) template in connection with coverage and plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2021. Updated instructions and other materials are also available on the agencies' websites. Specifically,
- The new form revises the minimum essential coverage statement to reference the impact on premium tax credit eligibility, and removes the reference to the individual mandate (given the mandate has been effectively eliminated),
- Likewise, the Uniform Glossary has removed references to the ...
The Seventh Circuit recently issued a stern warning about the importance of strict compliance with ERISA claim review timeframes in holding that the “substantial compliance” standard “does not apply to blown deadlines.” In this case, Fessenden v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. (7th Cir. 2019), the disability plan administrator issued a decision on review about eight days after the time prescribed by ERISA. In the short time period after the ERISA deadline expired and before the decision on review was rendered, the claimant filed suit as he was deemed to have ...
This year, we have seen a string of COBRA class actions seeking monetary penalties on account of defective COBRA notices. Most recently, in Hicks v. Lockheed Martin, the spouse of a former employee alleged various technical defects in Lockheed’s COBRA notice. Although on its face it appeared to include a good deal of required information, the Lockheed notice allegedly failed to state the COBRA coverage termination date, failed to provide an address to which payment should be sent, and failed to sufficiently identify the plan administrator. And, without this information, the ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Coronavirus
- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- Discrimination
- Department of Labor
- IRS
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- NLRA
- Retirement
- Arbitration
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- 401(k)
- Wage & Hour
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Title VII
- Workplace Accommodations
- ADAAA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Securities Law
- Technology
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Disability
- Health Savings Account
- Workplace Violence
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Religion Discrimination
- Representative Election Regulations
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Department of Justice
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Welcome 2021 - 5 Things for Employers to Consider
- Congressional Proposal Extends Tax Credits to Companies Providing Paid Leave, but Allows Requirement to Expire
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: EEOC Issues New Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccinations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements - Five Mistakes by Three Parties
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment At-Will – Myth or Reality?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: COVID-19 Immunity Laws
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reductions in Force - Key Factors to Consider
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast
- 5 Things Employers Should Know About Military Leave
- Ohio Passes COVID Immunity Law - Employers Beware