Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘Employee Retirement Income Security Act’

House Republicans Have A Temper Tantrum Over Rule That Bans Financial Advisers From Scamming Retirees

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

Bryce CovertThe Department of Labor (DOL) has finalized rules that require financial advisers who help people make investments for retirement to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own. But House Republicans aren’t letting the rule go into effect without a fight.

On Thursday, the House voted on a resolution that would effectively block the new rules, which require advisers to adhere to a “fiduciary standard,” that passed along strict party lines, with 234 Republicans voting yes and 183 Democrats voting no. Republicans claim that the rule will make investment advice more expensive, with Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN), a sponsor of the legislation, saying it would “protect access to affordable retirement advice.” They’ve also characterized the rules as government overreach, with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) calling them “Obamacare for financial planning.”

Their position mirrors that of the financial industry, which has fought the rules with claims about the impact they could have on their businesses that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has questioned as being disingenuous. Ahead of the House vote on the resolution, eight big financial industry trade groups sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to vote in favor of the resolution.

The vote, however, is a largely symbolic move. For the resolution to have any power, it would have to be taken up and passed by the Senate, and President Obama would have to sign it. But he’s already threatened to veto the measure. DOL Secretary Thomas Perez called Thursday’s vote “a waste of time.”

Before the new standard, advisers were only required to give “suitable” advice, which left the door open for them to steer clients into products that made the advisers more money but weren’t the best option. That practice was costing Americans an estimated$17 billion a year in conflicted advice, according to the White House. Some people say their finances, particularly their chances of retiring comfortably, have been destroyed by bad advice and that they would have simply been better off without it.

Americans have little wiggle room for losing money when it comes to saving enough for retirement. Pensions, which guarantee payments in old age, have beenoverwhelmingly replaced with 401(k)s, which require individual workers to make smart investment choices in order to have enough to live off of when they stop working. And by and large workers aren’t putting enough aside. The gap between what they should have saved up and what they’ve actually put away is $6.6 trillion. Meanwhile, about 60 percent of working age people have no retirement savings at all.

This blog originally appeared on Thinkprogress.org on April 29, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Bryce Covert Bryce Covert is the Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress. Her writing has appeared in the New York Times, The New York Daily News, New York Magazine, Slate, The New Republic, and others. She has appeared on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and other outlets.

Same-sex spouse gets ERISA death benefit

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Ross_Runkel_a

Sarah Farley had worked at a law firm where she participated in the firm’s Profit Sharing Plan – a plan qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Plan provides that death benefits be paid to the participant’s “surviving Spouse.”

Sarah then married Jean Tobits in Canada. When Sarah died, both Jean and Sarah’s parents claimed the death benefits.

The dispute went to federal district court in Pennsylvania (Cozen O’Connor PC v. Tobits) where the judge had no trouble deciding that Jean was Sarah’s surviving spouse.

In United States v. Windsor (US Supreme Court 06/26/2013) the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – defining “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex – is unconstitutional. Therefore, since Sarah and Jean were lawfully married, and that marriage is recognized by the laws of Illinois, ERISA has to be interpreted as meaning Jean was Sarah’s spouse. And thus the law firm’s ERISA plan has to be interpreted as meaning Jean was Sarah’s spouse.

This leaves me with one huge question: Will you get the same result in every state? That seems doubtful to me. The opinion in Windsor (a 5-4 decision) relied heavily on the fact that Windsor’s same-sex marriage was recognized by the State of New York (and the Tobits marriage was recognized by the State of Illinois). As Justice Kennedy put it, “DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.” So, if you’re in a state where same-sex marriages are not recognized, it may be difficult to apply the logic of the Windsor case.

Hat Tip to Mike Reilly at Lane Powell, who writes Boom: The ERISA Law Blog.

This article originally appeared on Ross Runkel Report on August 13, 2013.  Reprinted with permission

About the Author: Ross Runkel Ross Runkel is a full-time labor-management arbitrator, professor of law emeritus, and former editor of Employment Law Memo.

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog