Employee can sue under ERISA s. 510 even though all benefits covered by ERISA have been received
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Kowalski v. L & F Products that an employee could still sue under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for retaliatory firing despite the fact that the employer has provided benefits in full. L & F Products argued that the plaintiff had no claim under section 510 of ERISA because it had provided her with all the disability benefits to which she was entitled. The Court found that to force the plaintiff to choose between keeping her job and exercising her rights would be contrary to Congress' intent.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Nonvested terminated employee with employer contributions in suspense account not an affected employee for section 411(d)(3) purposes upon plan termination
Article Abstract:
The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Borda v. Hardy held that an affected employee for purposes of IRC section 411(d)(3) did not include the plaintiff employee who was not fully vested in his former employer's contributory plan. The plaintiff's contributions were still in the plan at the time of termination and he unsuccessfully attempted to receive the nonforfeiture accrual benefits of subsection 411(d)(3). His nonvested contributions were not deemed vested upon plan termination.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Labor opines on status of union emergency relief fund as an employee benefit plan
Article Abstract:
The Labor Department decided that the Southern Labor Union's Emergency Relief Fund could be an employee welfare benefit plan subject to ERISA section 3(1), but only if the phrase "authorized work stoppage" referred to unemployment rather than to strikes. The Department also stated that the death benefits payable were small enough to come under the remembrance fund exception of ERISA.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Planning for Educational Benefits after the Greensboro Case. Excluding Qualified Defined Benefit Plan Insured Incidental Death Benefits from the Participant's Gross Estate - Minority and Non-Stockholders
- Abstracts: Courts split on special deals tied to tender offers: at issue is when stock deals with major shareholders of the target violate Exchange Act rule 14d-10
- Abstracts: Owner beware; lender liability and CERCLA. Regulation X; rule puts teeth into RESPA prohibitions against settlement process abuses
- Abstracts: Public sector on the wane. Shopping for a better world
- Abstracts: The three faces of Dow Chemical. The myth of the corporate conscience. The gurus of corporate change