Workforce Bulletin

On March 29, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2954, entitled “Securing a Strong Retirement Act” (“Secure 2.0”), which would, among other things, impose additional requirements on employers that sponsor 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Secure 2.0 has not yet been passed by the Senate, and is likely to undergo changes, if passed by the Senate.  Nevertheless, the following overview of some of the provisions included in the House version of Secure 2.0 provides a preview of the types of changes that retirement plans sponsors may be required (or permitted) to implement, as early as this year or in 2023:

The recent Seventh Circuit decision in Halperin v. Richards provides a reminder to ERISA fiduciaries who are also corporate officers (frequently referred to as “dual-hat officers”) that they can be held liable under both ERISA and state tort law for the same underlying acts.

When paper company Appvion Inc. filed for bankruptcy in 2017, the liquidation plan granted Appvion’s creditors the right to pursue state law tort claims against former Appvion executives.  Halperin v. Richards concerned state law claims raised by certain creditors against former Appvion executives ...

Employers that are fiduciaries of participant-directed individual account plans (such as 401(k) plans) subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (‘Plans” and “ERISA”, respectively) should be pleased with the position taken by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) in an information letter dated June 3, 2020 (the “Letter”) addressing the use of private equity investments in designated investment alternatives offered in Plans.  The DOL states that, subject to the standards and considerations set forth in the Letter (and summarized ...

Plan participants and their beneficiaries may now have extra time to exercise some of their rights under the employee benefit plans in which they participate.  On April 28, 2020, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of the Treasury issued a joint notice extending certain timeframes applicable to employee benefit plans. The joint notice was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on May 4, 2020 (“Final Rule”), issued pursuant to Section 518 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), as recently ...

As the COVID-19 state of emergency continues, businesses are implementing and considering a variety of employee-related measures to manage the impact of the crisis. While some businesses may avail themselves of payroll protection programs and loans to maintain the status quo, others may be faced with having to implement reductions-in-force (RIFs), furloughs and layoffs.  Added to this, employers may be faced with larger numbers of leaves of absence both because of COVID-19-related health and family care reasons, but also when certain workers have been called to duty.  The ...

[Updated on April 17, 2020]

As temporary layoffs and furloughs become more prevalent during the COVID-19 outbreak, employers have been asking whether they may allow employees to take hardship distributions under their Section 401(k) plans for expenses and losses resulting from COVID-19.

Under the IRS hardship distribution final regulations, employers were permitted to add a new safe harbor hardship category that would allow an employee to take a hardship withdrawal to cover expenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by the employee on account of a disaster declared ...

The closure orders issued by federal and state government authorities across the United States have resulted in the reduction and loss of income for a significant percentage of the U.S. workforce. On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Coronavirus Act”), effective April 1, 2020, providing relief for certain eligible families, employers and businesses. Further legislation is on the horizon. Meanwhile, under existing law, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) permits employers to provide ...

Many employers are looking for ways to assist employees directly impacted by COVID-19 and employees on temporary lay-off or furlough who are exhausting their available paid-time-off (PTO). One option employers often ask about is the feasibility of adopting a leave sharing or leave donation program that would permit employees to donate vacation, sick leave or PTO to employees who need the additional time because they have been impacted by COVID-19. Properly structured, leave donated to a co-worker is a viable option, which will not be taxable to the donor but rather taxable to the co-worker when the leave is actually taken.

Employers generally may offer three different types of leave donation programs: (1) a major disaster leave sharing program (2) leave donations for employees on medical leave; and (3) leave donation to an employer-designated public charity or private foundation. Employees on leave for their own COVID-19 medical treatment could be beneficiaries of a medical leave sharing program; if an employee is not on medical leave, however, donating PTO to the employees would require a major disaster leave sharing program.

Major Disaster Leave Sharing. The current IRS guidance on “major disaster leave sharing programs” can be found under IRS Notice 2006-59. Such a program requires that the President declare a major disaster under Section 401(a) of the Stafford Act (or, as to federal employees only, a major disaster or emergency affecting a sufficient number of federal employees).On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be an “emergency” under Section 501(b) of the Stafford Act. He did not, however, formally declare it a Section 401(a) “disaster,” but merely stated that he would not preclude the possibility that the COVID-19 outbreak would also rise to a Section 401(a) “disaster.” To fully utilize a major disaster leave sharing program, IRS guidance in the form of an announcement, notice or otherwise, would be welcome.

Fiduciaries of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) that appoint investment managers (“Appointing Fiduciaries”) will be interested in the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Scalia v. WPN Corporation, et al (“WPN”) regarding their duty to monitor investment fiduciaries.  Given the potential risk related to a breach this fiduciary duty, the WPN opinion is likely to be an important one for Appointing Fiduciaries.

In WPN, the Department of Labor alleged ...

Our colleague Sharon L. Lippett at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Health Employment and Labor Blog that will be of interest to our readers in the retail industry: “A Reminder from the DOL: Document a Plan’s Procedures for Designating Authorized Representatives.”

Following is an excerpt:

While the Information Letter does not directly respond to the query from counsel to the Entity, the DOL’s response indicates that the Entity could be an authorized representative. The DOL states that, although a plan may establish reasonable procedures for determining ...

Financial institutions and advisers that manage retirement plan assets and are subject to the regulations of the Department of Labor (“DOL”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, (“ERISA”) regarding fiduciary duties (the “Fiduciary Rule”) may also be subject to state law violations for failure to comply with the Fiduciary Rule. The Enforcement Section of the Massachusetts Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth (the “Massachusetts Enforcement Section”) filed an administrative complaint (the ...

The IRS recently released the Tax Exempt and Government Entities FY 2018 Work Plan (the “2018 Work Plan”) which provides helpful information for sponsors of tax-qualified retirement plans about the focus of the IRS’ 2018 compliance efforts for employee benefit plan.  While the 2018 Work Plan is a high-level summary, it does address IRS compliance strategies for 2018 and should assist plan sponsors in administering their retirement plans.

The Work Plan provides that for fiscal year 2018, the IRS compliance strategies include examination of plans that:

1. Have transferred their ...

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) previously announced the applicability date for the DOL’s fiduciary rule (the “Fiduciary Rule”) will be June 9, 2017.  On May 22, 2017, in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta disclosed that, despite the Administration’s agenda of deregulation, the regulators are required to following existing law and must enforce the Fiduciary Rule.  On the same date, the DOL announced, in Field Assistance Bulletin 2017-02 (“FAB 2017-2”), that during a transition period from June 9, 2017 until January 1 ...

While Congress’ attention has most recently been focused on the American Health Care Act, that bill will most likely not be the only proposed legislation that Congress will consider in 2017. It appears that a tax reform plan (the “2017 Tax Proposal”), which could also have a wide-reaching impact, is also on the agenda.

If the 2017 Proposal includes provisions relating to defined contribution retirement plans sponsored by private employers, such as 401(k) plans, the impact will be felt by employers and investment managers, as well as by plan participants. While the Trump ...

Advisers and financial institutions that provide fiduciary investment advice have an additional 60 days before having to comply with the final regulations defining who is a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (the “Fiduciary Rule”).  On April 4, 2017, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a final rule (the “Final Rule”), which delays the applicability date of the Fiduciary Rule until June 9, 2017 and also extends for 60 days the applicability dates of the Best Interest Contract Exemption (the “BIC Exemption”) and the ...

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) that would delay for 60 days (the “60-Day Delay”) the April 10, 2017 applicability date of the DOL’s new fiduciary rule (the “Fiduciary Rule”). Given the potential change in the applicability date, financial services institutions will need to determine if they will continue their work toward implementation of the Fiduciary Rule or if they will delay their efforts.

The Proposed Rule provides for a 15-day comment period on the proposed 60-Day Delay and then a 45-day comment period ...

In Prince v. Sears Holding Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the “Fourth Circuit” or the “court”) sets forth a test that should assist sponsors of employee benefit plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) in identifying when participants’ state law claims may be removed to the federal courts.  The Fourth Circuit offers a clear explanation of complete preemption under Section 502(a) of ERISA and the test to determine if Section 502(a) completely preempts a state law claim.

Summary of the ...

Based on recent guidance from the Department of Labor (the “DOL”), many sponsors of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA Plans”) should have additional comfort regarding the impact of the conflict of interest rule released by the DOL in April 2016 (the “Rule”) on their plans. Even though it is widely expected that the Trump administration will delay implementation of the Rule, in mid-January 2017, the DOL released its “Conflict of Interest FAQs (Part II – Rule)”, which addresses topics relevant ...

Our colleague Sharon L. Lippett, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “New DOL FAQs Provide Additional Guidance (and Comfort) for Plan Sponsors.”

Following is an excerpt:

Based on recent guidance from the Department of Labor (the “DOL”), many sponsors of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA Plans”) should have additional comfort regarding the impact of the ...

Our colleague Sharon L. Lippett, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “New DOL FAQs Provide Additional Guidance (and Comfort) for Plan Sponsors.”

Following is an excerpt:

Based on recent guidance from the Department of Labor (the “DOL”), many sponsors of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA Plans”) should have additional comfort regarding the impact of the conflict of ...

Advisers and financial institutions that are compensated based on a fixed percentage of the value of assets under management may want to reconsider that compensation methodology as it could require compliance with a prohibited transaction exemption, such as the Best Interests Contract Exemption (the “BIC Exemption”), which is a component of the fiduciary rule issued by the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) in April 2016 (the “Final Rule”).  While stating in the recently published “Conflict of Interest FAQs” (the “FAQs”) that the ongoing receipt of a fixed ...