• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR LAW Weekly
  • The HR Weekly
  • California Employment Law
  • Minnesota Employment Law
  • New York Employment Law
  • Pennsylvania Employment Law
  • Texas Employment Law

Retirement

Feds Standardize Process for ‘Abandoned’ 401(k) Plans

06/01/2006

Each year, an average of 1,650 sponsors of 401(k) plans abandon their plans, often because the employer goes out of business or merges with another. When that happened, the U.S. Labor typically petitioned the courts to take control of the plan and distribute the 401(k) assets to employees. But new Labor Department rules streamline that process …

Steer Clear of ‘Take It or Leave It’ Early-Retirement Offers

03/01/2006

If you plan to lay off employees, structure early-retirement offers carefully to avoid age-discrimination lawsuits. In particular, avoid making "take-it or leave-it" offers that force employees to choose between resigning with a severance package or being terminated …

Popularity of 401(k) plans continues to grow

02/01/2006

In the past two decades, 401(k) plans have become the dominant retirement plan offered by employers. In fact, 64 percent of plan sponsors responding to a recent Hewitt survey said a 401(k) accounts for their organization’s primary retirement-savings program …

Retain benefit eligibility after FMLA leave

08/01/2005

Q. We understand that employees on FMLA leave don’t lose investment toward retirement plans. Leave time is counted as work time. But our policy says that if employees are out for more than 30 days, their anniversary dates will change. Accrued paid-time off and vacation time will be based on the new anniversary date. Can we do this? —K.A., Connecticut

Reverse age bias is rarely an issue with early retirees

01/01/2004

Q. Are there any specific rules defining “early out” retirement packages offered to employees? Our company is planning to offer early outs. Our criteria mandate that an employee must have worked 15 years and be at least 50 years old. But we have employees who have worked as long as 28 years, but fail to meet the 50-year-old criterion. Is this age discrimination in a reverse sort of way? —T.G., Florida