Search

The article focuses on the developments in employee benefits law from fall 2013 through fall 2014 in the U.S. It mentions the two U.S. Supreme Court cases including Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer related to the fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOP), and the Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. regarding the denial of the long-term disability benefits by insurer. It also mentions a Eighth Circuit court case Tussey v. ABB, Inc. related to 401(k) plan.

The article focuses on the development of the settlor/fiduciary doctrine and the evolution of employee benefits and their regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). It mentions the use of defined benefit (DB) plan assets, and the selection and management of defined contribution (DC) plan investment assets. It also mentions the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case U.S. Airways v. McCutchen related to fiduciary doctrine.

In this article the focus is on law that governs the transfer of academic employees in Swaziland. A literature study of relevant law sources brought a lack of higher education law that regulates the transfer of academic employees during a merger to light. It is this problem that the authors aimed to address in this article. The authors, in an attempt to provide a legal framework for the transfer of academic employees, considered general labour law and case law. The transfer of academics during the merger of three colleges into a private university in 2010 was studied as a practical example. The contribution of this article is that it provides information to higher education institutions in Swaziland who are contemplating merging, the legislature and policymakers who have to adopt law and policy exclusively regulating the transfer of employees in the higher education sphere and academic employees who may become transferees during future mergers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Recent Royal Decree 637/2014, of 25 July, which amends article 23 of the General Regulation on contributions and liquidations of Social Security rights, approved by Royal Decree 2064/1995, of 22 December, culminates a legislative procedure commenced in July 2012 which broadens the concepts to be included in the contribution base for Social Security purposes. The confessed objective of the legal amendments which will be referred to hereupon is to guarantee the sustainability of the Social Security system by means of incorporating to the contribution base certain concepts, which were previously excluded. Regarding contributions collection, the circle will be closed with the Law on direct liquidation of the Social Security contributions to companies directly by Social Security authorities. This Law is still a bill, authorized by the Board of Ministries on 1 August 2014. The most relevant effects to employers in Spain are, on the one hand, the rise in the social charges regarding those employees who do not reach the maximum contribution base for Social Security purposes (during 2014 is equivalent to € 3,597 on a monthly basis), and on the other hand, an administrative effort to meet the demanding req- uisites of the Social Security authorities on communication and infor- mation regarding remunerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. Schieffer, which dealt with the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Topics include the fiduciary responsibility for employee benefit plans, subject matter jurisdiction, and judicial interpretation of the term 'plan.'

The article reviews the history of relationship between American Bar Association (ABA) Tax Section, Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Employee Benefits Committee. Topics discussed include the importance of ERISA in providing tax benefits on retirement plans, laws for regulating tax deductions on employer contributions, and laws of the ABA for regulating employee benefits.

The article explores the history of laws related to fringe benefits in the U.S. and discusses the efforts of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to create a consistent framework for analyzing fringe benefit exclusions. Topics discussed include confusion pervading the fringe benefit due to use of varying theories and justifications for excluding fringe benefits, need of exclusion of the fringe benefits from taxation, and the nonstatutory exclusions of the benefits.

The article focuses on the split in the U.S. circuit court decisions barring fringe benefits recipients from bringing the claims under the Title I of the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Topics discussed include application of the U.S. Supreme Court Title VII fringe benefits race discrimination case, passage of ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) which allow fringe benefits recipients to bring Title I claims and Title I's antidiscrimination provisions with purposes of the ADA.

A bibliography on the subjects of gerontology and the law is presented which includes the books "How to Protect Elders From Harm" by James T. O'Reilly, "ERISA: Principles of Employee Benefit Law" by Peter J. Weidenbeck, and "Legal Aspects of Elder Care" by Marshall B. Kapp.

The DOL has a unique opportunity to advance the view that the sole interest rule is unsound, particularly in the investment advisory context, and this Article proposes how it should be modernized. This article analyzes a subcomponent of the “Prudent Person Rule” under ERISA Sec. 404(a)(1) (B), which is that of the duty to monitor, in this case, the investment advisor by the trustee. This Article proposes that the present Prudent Person Rule should be updated since the exclusive-benefit rule wrongfully precludes employers from also being considered beneficiaries by the Courts under ERISA. As a result of this preclusion, courts have been forced to indulge in pretense, such as the notion that benefits to employers are merely “incidental,” in order to reconcile ERISA with the economic realities of determining who should be a beneficiary and to what extent. Recognition of these requested changes will not automatically transform ERISA fiduciary law from a difficult task to an elementary one. Often, the issues will remain complex, but by using a more correct legal/financial prism by which to perceive reality, the answers may very well become strikingly more self-evident. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses several court cases addressing employee benefits law. Cases discussed include the U.S Supreme Court case US Airways Inc. v. McCutchen based on accident-related damage claims, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case Larson v. United Healthcare Insurance Co. and Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case Tibble v. Edison International. It mentions the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case Hellman v. Cataldo addressing health plans.

The right to unpaid leave is a benefit for the employee, a time during which he/she can solve certain personal problems, during an established period of time, without losing the position of employee, but also as a disadvantage for the employer, as he/she is obliged to pursue the same activity, for a certain period of time, with fewer employee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reviews the funding status of state-administered pension plans and their impact on state credit quality. As the fund ratio (actuarial assets/actuarial accrued liability) of state-administered pension plans decreases, states are more likely assigned a lower rating. Moreover, rating outlooks are sensitive to the fund ratio, especially for migration between stable and negative outlooks for states with lower fund ratios. These results are a timely pretest to the 2013/2014 implementation of GASB Statements No. 67 and 68, serving as a benchmark to assess whether new reporting requirements will yield information to alter the market's response to unfunded pension liabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arguably, one of a company's biggest investments is in its workforce. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which generally requires employers to offer health coverage to their employees, will increase the cost of this investment in many cases. The authors, based on recently issued proposed regulations, address some of the more commonly asked questions related to the new health care mandate, including which employers are subject to the mandate, the type of coverage that must be offered to avoid a penalty, and when and what penalties apply if required coverage is not offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By creating an across-the-board, routine employment benefit for all eligible employees, Congress sought to ensure that family-care leave would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the workplace caused by female employees, and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men. By setting a minimum standard of family leave for all eligible employees, irrespective of gender, the Family and Medical Leave Act attacks the formerly state-sanctioned stereotype that only women are responsible for family caregiving, thereby reducing employers' incentives to engage in discrimination by basing hiring and promotion decisions on stereotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Tenth Annual Employee Benefits Symposium on theme entitled "The Past, Present, and Future of Supreme Court Jurisprudence on ERISA," that was held at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois on April 16, 2012. In the conference, several topics including the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 fiduciary duties of corporate officers, legal issues of executive compensation, and several actions of the U.S. Supreme Court were discussed.

The author discusses issues concerning the equal protection clause in the U.S., highlighting the concept of same-sex public employee benefits in the country. He mentions that most states in the country have statues or constitutional provisions that prevent same-sex couples from marrying under state law. He also mentions the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed partly in response to efforts at legalizing same-sex marriage in the country.

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") is a controversial and historic statute that mandates people make insurance bargains. Unacknowledged is an innovative mechanism ACA uses to select the law that governs those bargains: opt-in federalism. Opt-in federalism--in which individuals may in part choose between federal and state rules--is a promising theoretical means to make and choose law. This Article explains why and concludes that the appeal of opt-in federalism is independent of the ACA. Whatever the statute's constitutional fate, future policymakers should consider opt-in federalist approaches to answer fundamental but exceedingly difficult questions of health and retirement law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the decisions by the courts regarding the employee benefits law of the U.S. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the U.S. and the circuit courts are based on the legal interpretation, administration and the jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the regulatory developments of the benefits law of the employees fall under the rules of the Department of Labor and the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the U.S. Information on the most significant employee benefits case Cigna Corp. v. Amara that was judged in the Supreme Court is also presented.

Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to ensure the protection of private employee benefits. In doing so, Congress created uniform national standards for the administration of private employee benefit plans. Section 510 of ERISA affords some protection to whistleblowers who report ERISA violations. There is uncertainty, however, about whether section 510 protects a whistleblower who complains directly to his or her employer, or whether protection is limited to an individual who makes a report externally. Some circuit courts have held that section 510 protects all ERISA whistleblowers, while others have held that section 510's protections are more limited. This Note considers the history of ERISA anal of whistleblower laws, addresses the circuit split over the reach of section 510's whistleblower protection provisions, and proposes an interpretation of section 510 that would provide broad protection to ERISA whistleblowers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the campaign led by the Domestic Workers United regarding the passage of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York. It describes the development of the bill and explains the need why such bill must be created into legislation, particularly the workers' exception from labor laws. It notes that the culmination of the campaign ended on November 29, 2010 when the bill became a law, providing workers's protection from discrimination, mandatory rest days and benefits.

In an era of rising health insurance costs and new mandates built into federal reform, employers of all sizes are discovering the advantages of controlling their own destinies with self-funded ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) health plans. With a large pool of employees, employers could expect to save about 10% by paying medical claims directly rather than purchasing fully insured coverage. The key is to pick the right partners, address outlier risk with stop-loss insurance and rigorously control costs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents information on the developments in the laws governing electronic payments made through different kinds of cards in the U.S. It provides information on changes in credit card laws and directions given to the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate ruling that are passed by the U.S. Congress in 2009 and 2010. It mentions changes in the Social Security Act regarding transfer of funds to recipients of federal benefits.

The article discusses the judicial developments related to employee benefits and the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974 (ERISA) in the U.S. It mentions several court cases including "McCauley v. First Unum Life Insurance Co.," "Chronister v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America" and "Pollitt v. Health Care Services Corp." It states that the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) amended the Title I of EISA on August 17, 2006. It highlights the guidance on the duties of employee benefit plan fiduciaries issued by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of the Department of Labor on February 5, 2009.

Subsequent to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, federal courts around the country have attempted to reconcile Glenn's primary holding-that a structural conflict of interest exists (and must factor into the review) when an employer "both funds the [employee benefit] plan and evaluates the claims"-with prior circuit court precedent holding that no conflict of interest exists when employee benefits are funded through a trust. This article discusses how the law has developed on this issue, both pre- and post-Glenn, and analyzes how the issue may affect plan sponsors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requiring an employer to subsidize an employee's premiums for continued group health insurance pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). The article discusses who qualifies for the subsidy, how the subsidy works, the recovery of premium subsidies, notice requirements to employees, election of different coverage options and the law's impact on pre-existing condition limitations. The article also discusses what employers need to be doing with respect to the COBRA provisions of ARRA, and possible further changes to health care coverage for employees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several court cases related to trade adjustment assistant (TAA) programs in the U.S. The first case related to TAA for Workers shows the failed investigation of the Department of Labor on the increase in imports of circuit boards to the decline in the sales or production of the employees. The second case related to TAA for farmers covers two steps in determining qualified farmers for cash benefits in which the court did not rule the first but issued rulings for the second.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a federal law regulating the administration of private employer-sponsored benefits including health benefits (i.e., health insurance offered by an employer). In general, since the federal government has exercised its authority to preempt state regulation of the administration of private employer-sponsored health plans, states are blocked from enforcing laws interfering with ERISA. As many states pursue health care reform experiments, ERISA preemption becomes relevant as a potential limit on the scope and type of reforms states are able to enact. The dominant trend in ERISA litigation has been to preempt state legislation and litigation interfering with the administration of private employer-sponsored health plans, making large-scale state health care reform initiatives difficult. The purpose of this paper is to examine the trajectory of judicial interpretation of ERISA and to discuss what opportunities exist to facilitate health care initiatives given the constraints of ERISA preemption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the legislation which gives working women paid family leave privileges in the U.S. President Barack Obama is said to understand the concerns of working women, and have committed to improving their conditions. Women indicated meeting family and work-life balance issues as top concerns they would like Obama's administration to tend to, specifically , the issue of paid family and sick leaves. It notes that legislations for paid family and sick leaves is an urgent priority for working families, apart from the universal health care.

The article discusses the impact of the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 on business productivity and costs. It is stated that the act has employee provisions, which include serious health problem leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, leave for adoptions and leave to care for severely ill parent or child. It notes that when an individual is unable to work, the firm's overall productivity level decreases, leading to alternative employment methods, which could violate the federal laws. It proposes the use of linear regression model to study the overall impact of FMLA provisions on productivity and costs, which include the applications of the asset size as dependent variable, the industry type as independent variable and the usage of the provisions as dummy variable.

The article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Justice under the social security law from 2003 to 2008. Some of the cases presented include the scope of ratione personae of Regulation 1408/71, the cases referring to the scope ratione materiae, and the cases about the different principles of co-ordination. A brief description of Regulation 1408/71, including its modernization and simplication, is also provided in the article.

The article offers information and opinions about the court case National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan which involved questions related to the prohibition of employers to provide health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of employees under the state's Marriage Amendment. The court examined the state constitution to decide that the Marriage Amendment prohibits public employers from giving health benefits to domestic partners of employees.

This article reviews and compares disability benefit systems in nine countries—Australia, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States. It focuses on temporary and partial disability benefit programs and on how such programs may help return persons with disabilities to work. An analysis of the general advantages and disadvantages of temporary and partial disability programs is presented. Specific concerns if such programs were to be implemented in the United States are addressed. Time-limited programs seem to have the potential to improve return to work among persons with disabilities and reduce program costs. Caution is needed in adopting such a program, as implementation would be complex and the employment outcomes of recently adopted time-limited programs overseas are yet to be evaluated. In contrast, the study found that partial disability benefit programs are complex to administer and appear to offer little potential to encourage return to work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the misinterpretations and nondisclosure claims under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 wherein many employees whose company-sponsored retirement saving plans were heavily invested in the stock of their employers have seen their account balances depleted. It presents an overview of ERISA fiduciary duties which were supposed to assure the equitable character and financial soundness of retirement and other benefit plans. Procedurally, ERISA may allow plaintiffs to proceed with the nondisclosure claims and avoid early dismissal of their case and obtain a favorable settlement.

The article focuses on a court case in which the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that the state's marriage amendment to its constitution prohibits healthcare benefits from being provided by public employers to their employees' same-sex domestic partners. According to the author, this judgment was in error because the court claimed the text was unambiguous. The author believes the text could have different constructions and the court should have ruled public employers could provide these benefits. The court proceedings challenging this amendment to the Michigan constitution is discussed.

El artículo discute la regulación de Brasil sobre los planes de stock option para empleados u opciones de participación accionaria de los trabajadores, como uno de los beneficios laborales adicionales reconocidos por la ley del trabajo brasileña. Los temas tratados incluyen el uso de stock options según la ley de corporaciones Lei das Sociedades Anónimas, argumentos a favor y en contra de estas opciones y la posición de la justicia laboral al respecto.

This article surveys recent developments in employee benefits law from Fall 2007 through Fall 2008. The first portion of the article reviews important judicial developments involving employee benefits and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The second part addresses noteworthy regulatory developments in employee benefits law. Although it seems that there have been important developments in the employee benefits arena nearly every year, in light of the change in administration, the increased democratic majority in Congress, there will undoubtedly be a number of significant legislative and regulatory developments in employee benefits law in the coming year.

The article focuses on the sovereign and jurisdictional issue of the international employee benefits law in the U.S. It explores the extraterritorial application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to domestic and foreign workers abroad, highlighting the confusing nature of the current legal framework. It also presents proposal for an extraterritorial application model and provides consideration to the tough situation of foreign employees in the country.

Using data from wave 5 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, this study examines: (1) the extent to which Australian employees use their annual leave entitlements; and (2) the association between annual leave taking and weekly hours of work. After restricting attention to employees likely to have entitlement to at least 4 weeks of paid annual leave, it is found that the mean number of days of leave taken per year is around To and that the majority of employees (63%) take less than 20. The incidence of annual leave taking is found to vary positively with the number of usual weekly hours of work, but the size of this effect is small and weak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the credit market disruptions that began in 2007, it is not uncommon to see mortgage-backed, asset-backed, and CLO or CDO securities downgraded or purchased at both origination and in the secondary market at higher discounts and/or with higher promised rates of interest than in the past. Should these factors change the traditional approach taken in determining whether securities designated as notes should be considered debt or equity when acquired by pension and profit sharing plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or entities deemed to hold their assets (collectively, "Plans")? If such notes must be recharacterized as equity, they cannot be sold to or in some cases held by Plans. Thus, the debt-equity distinction is of great importance to sponsors and underwriters in the initial market, non-Plan sellers in the secondary market, and Plans purchasers in both. This article concludes that while the issue is being debated, on balance the current market conditions should not change the traditional debt-equity ERISA analysis and a note that received debt treatment for ERISA purposes previously would receive the same treatment now. However, even if a note is determined to be debt, whether it should be purchased by a Plan should in the final analysis be based upon its investment suitability as determined by the Plan's fiduciary in accordance with the applicable ERISA prudent investment standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article surveys recent developments in employee benefits law during the latter half of 2006 and earlier half of 2007. The first portion of this article reviews important judicial developments involving employee benefits and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. It presents the cases Bakri v. Venture Manufacturing Co., Thurman v. Pfizer, Inc and Guilbert v. Gardnerp among others. On April 17, 2007, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service published final regulations under section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. The final regulations became effective January 1, 2008, but could be relied upon as early as April 17, 2007. Section 409A applies to a plan, arrangement, or individual contract that provides for a deferral of compensation

A revocation-by-divorce statute essentially nullifies a devise in a divorced decedent's will when the devise bequeaths property, to the decedent's ex-spouse and the will was executed during their marriage. Until recently, state revocation-by-divorce statutes unquestionably applied not only to wills but also to will substitutes, including ERISA-governed employee benefit plans. In 2001, the Supreme Court hem in Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex tel. Breiner that ERISA preempts traditional state revocation-by-divorce statutes KS applied to ERISA-governed employee benefit plans. In the wake of the Egelhoff decision, plan administrators may automatically pay proceeds to the listed beneficiary, even an ex-spouse, regardless of the existence of a traditional state revocation-by-divorce statute. One solution to this preemption is the use of a constructive trust. Uniform Probate Code section 2-804(h)(2) imposes a constructive trust against an ex-spouse when the ex-spouse receives proceeds from an employee benefit plan because ERISA preempts a state revocation-by-divorce statute. The constructive trust is in favor of those persons who would take if the corresponding state revocation-by-divorce law were not preempted. This Note argues that state statutory constructive trusts adopting Uniform Probate Code section 2-804(h)(2) can resurrect the revocation-by-divorce doctrine as applied to ERISA-governed employee benefit plans. In doing so, constructive trusts would achieve an equitable result consistent with the law's treatment of other will substitutes as well as wills themselves. The Note begins by discussing the revocation-by-divorce doctrine and ERISA jurisprudence and explains how ERISA intertwines with traditional revocation-by-divorce statutes. The Note then reviews currently suggested methods to harmonize ERISA-governed employee benefit plans with the treatment of other will substitutes and contends that those proposals are inadequate because they undermine ERISA's goals. The Note concludes that state constructive trust statutes will avoid ERISA preemption while also furthering ERISA's goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates the impact of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on employee welfare benefit plans and health plans in the U.S. In particular, sections 502(a) and 514 of ERISA, which govern remedies and federal preemption, are considered. The author contends that these provisions, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, affect the injured plaintiff's ability to obtain proper retribution. A discussion on the impact of ERISA on health care is considered.

The article discusses the court case City of Philadelphia versus Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Shanks) in which the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania considered any permanent loss of qualitative benefits when determining job availability. It presents information on the factual and procedural development of the case. It provides an analysis of the court's decision in the case.

The New York City Health Care Security Act is a local law requiring certain employers to make a minimum annual health care expenditure on behalf of their employees or the public. The law is designed to defray some of the health care costs borne by the state and local governments by shifting part of this burden onto employers. The law may face a preemption challenge under the Employee Income Retirement Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, which preempts any state law that "relates to" an ERISA employee benefit plan. This Note argues that the law is not preempted by ERISA because it neither "refers to" nor has a "connection with" ERISA benefit plans. In addition, the law furthers the critical policy goal of developing a more accessible, affordable, and equitable health care system, a goal that fully comports with the purposes of ERISA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluates the interpretation of the case law doctrine based on preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila. Analysis of the text on preemption under ERISA; Effects of managed care on ERISA; Types of preemption that courts may consider when handling an ERISA health care case.

This article presents information about the legislation, regulation and cases related to employee benefits in the U.S. The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, Public litigation No. 108-311, 118 Statement 1166, extends through 2005 the sunset dates for the mental health parity requirements under the section 9812(0 of the Code, as amended, section 712(f) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and section 2705(f) of the Public Health Service Act. On December 17, 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board released its long-awaited and highly controversial revision to Statement No. 123 regarding proper accounting treatment for share-based payments.

Argues that the ruling of the Tax Court of Canada in Alcatel Canada v. The Queen stands as a prime example of the court's failure to appropriately characterize the timing and effect of the conferral of stock options for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. Advantage of the employee stock option programs on employees; Statutory framework governing the computation of investment tax credit; Alcatel's computation of the value of stock option benefits; Legal basis of the court's judgment.

This article focuses on the court case Ahmed v. Ahmed, related to the state of marital relations in the U.S. In this case, an Ohio appellate court addressed the issue of whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 preempted Ohio Revised Code section 2105.19 in determining the distribution of employer-provided life insurance benefits. Although the case is only binding precedent in Ohio, the court's rationale in preempting the Slayer Statute could be persuasive in other jurisdictions because it is one of only a handful of cases to have addressed the issue since the U.S. ERISA preempts a state law if it relates to an employee benefit plan. This section was necessary to further ERISA's uniformity goal by addressing the prior inconsistent treatment of pension plans in state courts.