Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A three-part analysis is used to decide whether ERISA preempts state law. First, preemption is presumed if the state law "relates to" any employee benefit plan. Second, a state law relating to an employee benefit plan may be protected from preemption under ERISA if it regulates insurance, banking, or securities.
While called bonds, these obligations to protect an employer from employee-dishonesty losses are really insurance policies. These insurance policies protect from losses of company monies, securities , and other property from employees who have a manifest intent to i) cause the company to sustain a loss and ii) obtain an improper financial ...
Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1982), is a US labor law case, [1] concerning the fiduciary duty owed to an employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). [2]
This category is for articles related to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, a United States federal law. Subcategories This category has only the following subcategory.
Notice to Hewlett-Packard Employees: Zamansky & Associates Investigates 401(k) Plan for ERISA Violations NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Zamansky & Associates LLC announces that it is investigating ...
Laws applied Employee Retirement Income Security Act , 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan , 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified subrogation procedures under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). [ 1 ]
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is an agency of the United States Department of Labor responsible for administering, regulating and enforcing the provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
It sets the precedent that any state statutes having a "connection with" ERISA plans are superseded by ERISA, or any future substantially similar law that takes its place. In essence, this decision is a reaffirmation of the right and ability of the federal government to, at least in some instances, pre-empt state laws.