Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Retirement Relationship Manager

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Plan Administrator, Defined Benefit & Cash Balance

The Pension Source
(Remote / Stuart FL / NY / TX / Hybrid)

The Pension Source logo

Temporary Document Specialist

BPAS
(Utica NY)

BPAS logo

Defined Benefit Plan Consultant/Actuarial Analyst

Sentinel Group
(Remote / Everett MA)

Sentinel Group logo

Plan Consultant - DB/CB

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

Sentinel Group
(Remote / Everett MA)

Sentinel Group logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Pattison Pension
(Albuquerque NM / Hybrid)

Pattison Pension logo

Regional Vice President, Sales

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Strategic Retirement Plan Consultant

Retirement Plan Consultants
(Urbandale IA / Des Moines IA)

Retirement Plan Consultants logo

Data Administrator II

DWC - The 401(k) Experts
(Remote)

DWC - The 401(k) Experts logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile app icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

The Retro-Effect: Outstanding Issues in Qualified Plan Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage as Highlighted by Schuett v. FedEx
Trucker Huss Link to more items from this source
Feb. 4, 2016
"[This case] highlights the reality and potential impacts of a retroactive application of Windsor. Plan administrators and fiduciaries should remain aware of the possibility of claims brought under Title I of ERISA to enforce a benefits claim by a participant in a same-sex marriage who retired before the Windsor decision ... Furthermore, Plan administrators should be aware that plan amendments that provide for recognition of same-sex marriages beginning on the date of the Windsor decision will not protect the plan and fiduciaries from Title I claims stemming from events prior to the Windsor decision." [Schuett v. FedEx Corp., No. 15-cv-0189 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016)]

MORE >>

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).