Plan sponsors now have additional answers to some of their questions about the effect of the Windsor decision on retirement plans. Notice 2014-19, released on April 4, 2014, provides guidance concerning the application (including retroactive application) of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and the June 26, 2013, Supreme Court decision that invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Continue Reading

On August 9, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez issued an internal memo calling for the implementation of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor.  In that case, the Court held that section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which limited the definition of marriage to “a legal union between one man and one woman,” violated due process and equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment.  The internal memo stated that the Department of Labor (“DOL”) will be removing references to DOMA from its correspondence, and will be working to ensure the availability of spousal leave based on same-sex marriages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).


Continue Reading

In a landmark ruling, United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down a major provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).  Since its enactment in 1996, DOMA defined “marriage” to mean “only a union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife” and “spouse” to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife,” which, by their terms, excluded marriages of same-sex couples.  These definitions were applicable to all federal statutes, regulations, rulings and orders, including the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

Continue Reading

EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

Vance v. Ball State University: Narrow Definition of Supervisor in Harassment Suits
In Vance, the Supreme Court announced a narrow standard for determining which employees constitute “supervisors” for purposes of establishing vicarious liability under Title VII. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that a supervisor is a person authorized to take “tangible