Photo of Stephanie B. Vasconcellos

Ed. Note: On September 22, 2020, the Fourth Circuit denied Gannett’s petition for rehearing en banc.  On October 8, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied Schweitzer’s petition for rehearing en banc.  We expect the defendants (in Gannett) and the plaintiffs (in Schweitzer) will petition the Supreme Court for certiorari within the coming weeks, and will update this post as new developments arise in the case.

The Fourth Circuit’s recent split decision in Quatrone v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 19-1212 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) is sure to raise the blood pressure of sponsors and administrators of retirement plans with single stock funds.  Together with a recent Fifth Circuit decision in Schweitzer v. Inv. Comm. of Phillips 66 Sav. Plan, No. 18-cv-20379, 2020 WL 2611542 (5th Cir. May 22, 2020), the Gannett case highlights the dilemma of retirement plan sponsors and fiduciaries, who, as a result of a corporate transaction, inherit a plan investment fund consisting of a single class of stock that does not constitute an employer security for purposes of ERISA (i.e., a “single stock fund”).  Plan fiduciaries in these circumstances have been targeted in class actions brought by an aggressive plaintiffs’ bar both for liquidating a single stock fund too soon and for not liquidating a single stock fund soon enough.  While courts are still evaluating how to handle these single stock fund cases, a plan fiduciary’s potential exposure for continuing to maintain such a fund seems to turn, at least in part, on the manner in which ERISA’s duties of prudence and diversification apply to the single stock fund as a plan investment option.


Continue Reading Appellate Court Split in Recent Single Stock Fund Litigation

The SECURE Act, enacted in December 2019, greatly enhances the ability of employers (particularly small and medium-sized employers) to maintain retirement programs for their employees. Specifically, it provides for the creation of a new retirement vehicle called a “Pooled Employer Plan.”  Unrelated employers may participate in a Pooled Employer Plan, which is sponsored by a

The Tenth Circuit’s recent split decision in M. v. Premera Blue Cross, No. 18-4098 (July 24, 2020), poses a significant threat to the deferential standard of review typically applied to benefit plan claim determinations, and imposes a new burden on plan administrators.

More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989), that benefit denials are “reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Applying the Firestone doctrine, lower courts have consistently applied the substantially more deferential “arbitrary and capricious” or “abuse of discretion” standard of review to benefit denials when the plan at issue granted the plan administrator (or relevant fiduciary) discretionary authority consistent with the Firestone case.

The Tenth Circuit, in Premera, changes that standard.


Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Decision Puts New Emphasis on Including Discretionary Authority Language in Summary Plan Descriptions

The IRS and the Treasury Department, acknowledging the widespread impact of COVID-19, have issued Notice 2020-29 and Notice 2020-33, granting much-sought flexibility for flexible spending accounts (“FSAs”) and health plans.  Though the Section 125 cafeteria plan rules applicable to FSAs and health plans already permitted some limited election changes in the case of changes in status (for example, in the event of significant cost or coverage changes), they did not address the wide array of changes that many participants have wanted to make based on the ripple effects of the COVID-19 crisis.  In addition, the existing Section 125 rules required that any change to the election be consistent with (as determined under the rules) and on account of the applicable change in status.

Continue Reading Flexibility for Flexible Spending Accounts in Light of COVID-19

The Department of Labor (together with the Treasury Department) has issued helpful deadline relief for participants and beneficiaries in health, disability, other welfare and pension plans, as well as for plan sponsors and administrators of such plans, during the COVID-19 National Emergency.  The guidance came just in time for plan administrators at risk of missing the deadline for distributing annual funding notices, which was April 29 this year.

Continue Reading DOL Issues COVID-Related Deadline Relief

In the third and final of a series, our employment and benefits teams take an in depth look at the provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act” or the “Act”) affecting employment, compensation, payroll taxes and paid leave. Read more on the Mayer Brown COVID-19 Blog.

US employers are considering many alternatives to address the significant economic hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One such alternative is putting one or more groups of employees on furlough—a low paid or unpaid leave of absence. However, now more than ever, employers must carefully address health plan coverage during a furlough. See our Legal

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, signed into law on March 18, 2020, is a  significant piece of federal legislation addressing the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  Among its many provisions is a broad requirement that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide coverage for COVID-19 testing without any cost sharing, prior authorization,

For an update on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which requires coverage of testing without cost sharing effective March 18, 2020, see our blog entry.

In an effort to remove barriers to testing for and treatment of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), the Internal Revenue Service today issued Notice 2020-15. The Notice