Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Insurance

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Insurance

DOL decides company owes benefits to part-time employees

Article Abstract:

The US Dept of Labor (DOL) sued Time Warner Inc for denying pensions and health benefits to full-time employees who were wrongly classified as part-time workers or independent contractors. Among the violations cited by the DOL was the failure of Time Warner to identify employees who were eligible for its Time Warner Plans and Subsidiary Plans. It also failed to ensure that all eligible employees were participants of both plans. It also did not provide 'temporary workers' or 'independent contractors' all the necessary documents required under the terms of both plans.

Author: Mamorsky, Jeffrey D.
Publisher: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Compensation and Benefits
Subject: Insurance
ISSN: 0893-780X
Year: 1998
Periodical Publishers, Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors, Periodicals, Pension & Benefit Regulation, General & Consumer Periodicals, Time Warner Inc., Periodical publishing, TWX, Labor relations, General interest magazines, United States. Department of Labor

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Release of future claims not fiduciary breach

Article Abstract:

In 'Lockheed v. Spink,' the Supreme Court held that an employer's offer of improved pension benefits to encourage early retirements is not a prohibited transaction under ERISA. Under the amended pension plan, the early retirees signed a waiver releasing future claims against the employer in exchange for the enhanced pension benefits. The Court ruled that payment of benefits in exchange for the performance of a condition is not a prohibited transaction under ERISA.

Author: Mamorsky, Jeffrey D.
Publisher: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Compensation and Benefits
Subject: Insurance
ISSN: 0893-780X
Year: 1996
Retirement Benefits

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Courts clarify requirements for summary plan descriptions

Article Abstract:

A participant in a welfare benefit plan is supposed to be informed about the terms of the plan and its benefits through the summary plan description (SPD), under the ERISA. SPD is essential in the resolution of disputes arising from differences in SPD and the terms of the policy. ERISA, however, does not provide a definition of SPD. The absence of definition has culminated in court decisions by the Fifth and Fourth Circuits.

Author: Mamorsky, Jeffrey D.
Publisher: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Compensation and Benefits
Subject: Insurance
ISSN: 0893-780X
Year: 1992
Health planning

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Pensions, Employee benefits
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: IRS gives relief to policyholders. IRS issues DAC regulations
  • Abstracts: IRS issues final salvage and subrogation regulations. IRS appeals to a higher court but does not win its case
  • Abstracts: Market conduct emerges as rating issue. Insurers won't succeed doing business as usual. Risk-based capital: is your company ready?
  • Abstracts: Flexible benefits - objectives and health care options. Flexible benefits-beyond health care. The current state of retiree medical plans
  • Abstracts: Disclosure of "usual and customary" fee schedules. DOL issues guidance in evaluating Y2K fiduciary liability
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.