Standing-ERISA and ADEA-Employee/independent contractor status
Article Abstract:
To possess standing to file suit under ERISA or ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act), an individual has to be an employee. The protection of ERISA and the ADEA does not extend to independent contractors. An insurance agent is an independent contractor where his contract clearly states he is considered an independent contractor, he was free to operate his business as he saw fit without day to day intrusions; he was paid by commission rather than by salary or hourly wage; his tax returns indicated most of his income came from self employment; and he sold competitors' products, even though the insurance company provided him with benefits such as life insurance, pension and a 401(k) program that are provided in the employment relationship; his relationship with the company was long term, having lasted 16 years; the company unilaterally imposed minimum production standards upon him; and the company employed him for three years that were spent training him to be an agent. A claimant under ERISA and ADEA must establish his status as an "employee." Article includes Barnhart v. N.Y Life Insurance case.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 2000
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Standard of review-Administrator's discrestion-Safe harbor plan language to confer discretion
Article Abstract:
An ERISA plan is required to confer discretion on an administrator in precise terms that provide employees notice that benefit decisions are largely protected from judicial review due to the deference that will be accorded the decisions of the administrators. Plan language mandating the administrator to determine eligibility or or stipulates that benefits are payable upon proof, or satisfactory proof, of entitlement to them is not sufficient to confer discretion.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 2001
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Plan administration and interpretation administration - health and welfare benefits; exclusions; policy terms interpretation
Article Abstract:
Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co's refusal to pay the $50,000 accidental death benefit to Charles Vickers' beneficiaries was contested by the estate of the deceased. Boston Mutual cited that Vickers' death was not accidental because a heart attack caused Vickers to crash his car. The court ruled that Boston Mutual should award the benefit plus $20,000 in benefits because the insurer's clause did not exclude coverage for loss directly or indirectly resulting from bodily infirmity or disease.
Publication Name: Benefits Quarterly
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 8756-1263
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: