Courts ruled that "opt-outs" are no longer required when a plan is auto-enroll, as the participant can just set their contribution to $0, which they deemed "equal to opting out." So, the plan doesn't recognize opt-outs in any way. That would be fine if it were as simple as setting my contribution to $0 and never thinking about it again. The auto-escalation works as such; any employee not contributing 6% will be bumped up to 6% every July. So once a year, I have 30 days to ensure my $0 stays at $0. My argument, and the DOL's argument, is that since I [quite literally] can never participate, and even one accidental contribution would cost me not only $15k, I'd have to immediately resign to avoid the interest penalties, why not allow me to waive my right and avoid the stress outright?
I could have a medical emergency within that month, need to take FMLA, etc. The 401k is managed by Empower, whose CEO lobbied Congress to do away with opt-outs and is behind all the new legislation to force contributions. Very soon, it may be that contributing nothing is no longer allowed. Then what? I have to resign and take another job based on whether or not they let me skip out on their plan altogether. All these arguments fall on uninterested ears as they keep citing "the plan does not allow opt-outs," which is fine; I'm not trying to "opt-out." I'm aware that the financial industry purchased the votes and courts to ensure plans no longer have to accept opt-outs. The plan says, "the plan admin can interpret the rules with complete authority," so why not accept the waiver of my right to participate and interpret that to mean that I am an ineligible employee? It's moving a checkmark in the HR software from eligible to ineligible and filing away the signed waiver of my right to participate. Yet, they refuse to budge despite their ability to "interpret the rules with complete authority."
Does anyone have any attorneys they'd recommend? My situation's very rare, one-off nature doesn't necessarily have them lining up to help...