Search the Community

I was terminated from my job in July, however, I was told I am eligible for re hire as long as my 401k loans were paid back. I have more money in my 401k than the loans that I borrowed. I do not owe the employer the money, it was MY money that I was contributing to the plan, that I borrowed from. Since I am unable to pay back the loan, I have to let it roll over as earned income in my taxes. Why am i being told i have to pay back MY money before i am eligible to re apply and be considered for employment again with the same company. I could understand if I owed the company money, but it was my money. Is this legal? (And I know, why fire me if you're just going to tell me "you're eligible for rehire..")

We have an employee whose last day of work occurred mid-September. He was participating in both our group health plan and our HRA. He remains covered by the health plan through the end of the month. The question is if he is also covered by our HRA during that time? In our plan adoption agmt, we have one clause that states that "an Employee is eligible to participate in the Plan under the same terms and conditions as under the Company benefit plan" - and our group health plan is then specified as the "Company benefit plan". However, later in the agmt, we have another clause that specifies "Permit Eligible Employees to participate in the Plan after Termination" and the "No" box is checked. So our TPA is saying that the ex-employee's access to his HRA ends on his last day of work (or technically, the next day). But that seems to conflict with the first clause and in addition, it seems, shall we say, asymmetrical to allow an ex-employee to continue to accrue expenses under the health plan, while denying him access to the HRA at the same time. I am not sure which clause should take precedence or whether it is up to us, as the plan administrators, to override our TPA's interpretation if we so wish. Or should we just check with an ERISA lawyer... Thanks in advance!

I have a question regarding a safe harbor 401(k) established in August 2016. We set the effective date as of 1/1/16 to allow all enrolled employees at 8/1/16 the ability to receive a full year contribution into the plan. Prior to us establishing the plan, we had two employees terminate their employment (one in February and one in April of 2016). Now our Administrator is saying that because our effective date is 1/1/16, we have to provide a safe harbor contribution to the two terminated employees even though they were not employed when we established the 401(k) plan. Does this sound right? It does not make sense to me. Any help would be appreciated.