The Department of Labor (the “DOL”) recently clarified that tax-exempt entities (such as non-public schools or charitable hospitals) offering 403(b) annuity programs subject to Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”)must file an Internal Revenue Service Form 5500 Annual Report (“Form 5500”) for the 2009 plan year and thereafter. The new guidance, Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) No. 2010-01 (February 17, 2010), also details which employee annuity contracts must be reported on the Form 5500 and what types of annuity contracts are grandfathered from the reporting requirements.
Department of Labor Supplements 403(b) Annuity Plan Guidance for Tax-Exempt Entities: Where Does Your Plan Stand?
Lidings advises Turkey’s Ipek Jut in major delivery to Russian trading network Magnit
195.1 UPDATE: New York Issues Guidelines, Instructions and Additional Model Notices of Pay Rates and Pay Days
The New York State Department of Labor (“DOL”) has recently made available important new information for employers regarding their obligations under Section 195.1 of the Labor Law including notice of pay rates, pay dates and other information.
As we previously reported (see our Client Alerts of December 11, and October 30, 2009), pursuant to Section 195.1 of the Labor Law (the “Statute”), as of October 26, 2009, employers must provide newly hired New York employees with written notice of their: (1) pay rate; (2) overtime pay rate (if they qualify for overtime pay); and (3) regular paydays.
As we reported in our Client Alert of December 24, 2009 (“UPDATE: COBRA Subsidy: What it Means for Employers Now“), President Obama signed into law the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (the “Defense Appropriations Act”), which, among other things, extended and expanded certain provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) pertaining to premium assistance for benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”). The Defense Appropriations Act extended the COBRA premium subsidy program for assistance-eligible individuals who became eligible for COBRA from the period that began September 1, 2008, and ended on December 31, 2009, to the period that ended on February 28, 2010.
On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced that it was expanding its worksite enforcement strategy in the Southeastern United States. As part of this strategy, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the agency within DHS directly responsible for worksite enforcement, indicated that it is issuing Notices of Inspections (“NOIs”) to 180 businesses in Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. These NOIs alert the businesses that ICE will be inspecting their Form I-9s and seeking to review voluminous other business records, including a list of current and terminated employees with hire and termination dates; the names, social security numbers and dates of birth of all active employees; quarterly wage and hour reports and/or payroll data on all employees covering the period of inspection; quarterly tax statements; all correspondence with the Social Security Administration (including “No-Match” letters); and more! All of this is an effort by ICE to determine whether the businesses are complying with federal employment eligibility verification laws and regulations.
This DHS announcement is the latest in a series of expanding worksite enforcement efforts by the Obama administration. Instead of raids, the Obama administration has focused its efforts on auditing and investigating employers to determine if they are satisfying the Form I-9 requirements and are knowingly or unwittingly employing illegal workers. Hector Chichoni, the Chair of EBG’s Southeastern Immigration Practice, notes: “this action by ICE underscores what the Immigration Law Group at EBG has been advising clients since the Obama administration took office. Businesses need comprehensive employment verification and related compliance plans in place because the civil and potentially criminal consequences of this enforcement strategy can be severe. Businesses that ignore this important aspect of their operations can face substantial fines that make compliance now not only good corporate citizenship, but also good risk management.”
The New York Times recently published a few intriguing articles about women that I wanted to share with you.
Women are working in the financial industry in fewer numbers these days, despite more than 20 years of increased hiring and promoting, according to the article “Where Are the Women on Wall Street?” What is responsible for this decline? As The Times notes, fewer female graduates are seeking careers in the financial industry and women are abandoning the industry faster than men. And when women are laid off from a financial job, it’s harder for them to return to the industry because they face an environment that’s more hostile to women than men. While this is disappointing news, The Times adds, on a positive note, that women continue to maintain “a strong presence in some areas in finance, including wealth management.”
As we discussed in our January 22, 2010, client alert Massachusetts Data-Protection Regulations To Have National Impact (click here), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will begin to enforce new …
California Supreme Court Holds That Labor Code Section 233 Is Not Applicable To Sick Leave Policies That Provide For Unlimited Number Of Days Off
While employers are not required to provide paid sick leave to their California employees, those that do provide such a benefit are required to abide by the provisions of Labor Code sections 233 and 234. Labor Code section 233 mandates that employers who provide a paid sick leave benefit must allow employees to use one-half of their annual accrued paid sick leave to care for an ill family member (parent, child, spouse or registered domestic partner). This provision of the Labor Code is commonly called “kin care” leave. In addition, Labor Code section 234 prohibits employers from disciplining or terminating employees because they use “kin care” leave.
In my most recent article in the series I have been writing for the BNA’s Health Law Reporter on payment and delivery system reform, accountable care organizations and bundled payments, I comment on where things are now that federal reform has stalled. The article, titled “Payment and Delivery System Reform: It’s Only a Matter of Time,” argues that changes in payment and delivery are on the horizon regardless of the pace of federal reform and that providers (and payers as well) should continue their efforts toward accountable care to meet the cost and quality challenges that are no less daunting today than they were a month ago. Please click here to view. I hope you find it of interest.