Nazay v. Miller, 949 F.2d 1323, 14 EBC 1953 (3rd Cir. 1991)
Article Abstract:
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a penalty provision for noncompliance with an ERISA health plan's precertification requirements is enforceable. The court also stated that an employer exercising a corporate management decision is not subject to ERISA's standard for fiduciary duties and that plan administrators' refusal to grant a waiver was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Moreover, the court also decided that Bethlehem Steel Corp's management authority was improperly encroached upon by the requirement of a demonstration of prejudice to the plan before a penalty may be imposed.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
State workers' compensation laws
Article Abstract:
The ERISA preempts employee benefit plans of the Workers' Compensation Equity Amendment Act of 1990. The Greater Washington Board of Trade claimed in its sit against of Washington DC that section 2(c)(2) of the state's Equity Amendment Act was preempted by section 514 (a) of ERISA. The court of appeals ruled that the Equity Amendment Act is indeed preempted by ERISA since it complements ERISA-covered plans and it is not covered by the exceptions list found in ERISA's section 514(b).
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
State usury laws
Article Abstract:
The ERISA preempts California's state laws that excludes ERISA pension plans from the state's usury laws although the usury law itself is not preempted. This ruling by the District Court for the Eastern District of California on the suit filed by the L.H. Research Plan against Waldron Seolas was based on the Ninth Circuit's guidelines. The state usury law is not included in any of the Ninth Circuit's four categories of laws which determine those that are preempted by ERISA.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Watkins v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., F.3d (9th Cir. 1993), 17 EBC 1990. Simas v. Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, 6 F.3d 849 (1st Cir. 1993)
- Abstracts: Commissioner v. Schleier, ____ U.S. ____ (1995), 19 EBC 1377. Participant status - standing to sue for benefits under ERISA; temporary and leased employees; antiretaliation protection
- Abstracts: Union wage premiums by gender and race: evidence from PSID 1980-1992. The determinants of union membership growth in Taiwan
- Abstracts: New mandatory withholding and rollover rules for qualified plan distributions. Former employee testing under final nondiscrimination regulations: past, present, and future?
- Abstracts: Ben & Jerry's caring capitalism. Expert advice on how to move forward with change