The U.S. Supreme Court recently gaveadministrators a break under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by ruling that they don't have to monitor conflicting state laws regarding beneficiaries.
The case: David Egelhoff died about two months after divorcing Donna Egelhoff. He never removed her as beneficiary from his life insurance and pension plans, which are covered by ERISA. His kids from an earlier marriage sued to get the money, because Washington state has a law that automatically revokes the designation of a spouse as a beneficiary after a divorce.
The justices ruled, however, that ERISA trumps such state laws. Other-wise, they noted, ERISA administrators would not only have to monitor every state law but would also have to settle complex issues such as arise when the plan administrator, participant and former spouse are all in different states. (Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, No. 99-1379)
Watch states forexpansion
More than a dozen state legislatures are debating proposals to add new mandates to their statelaws, including making more small businesses comply.
Fifteen states already mandate some type of family or medical leave for employers with fewer than 50 employees, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families. Eight states require leave for children's school activities.
The biggest issue this year: whether states should use unemployment insurance funds to offer paidbenefits for workers.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Unions are revving up: Here's how to keep them at bay
- Your handbook doesn't decide unemployment comp
- Court rejects Continental worker's claim of benefit miscalculation
- Put teeth in your arbitration agreements! Make sure employees acknowledge them