Gradient

News

News

Employment Practices

[10/03] Employers cut 159,000 jobs, most in over 5 years
[10/03] UBS to cut 2,000 jobs at its investment bank
[10/02] Star-Ledger owner hopeful it can avoid closure

More...

Labor and Management Relations

[10/06] Unpaid Overtime and Mental Stress Rule Around the Globe
[10/06] EBay to cut 1,000 jobs, will buy Bill Me Later
[10/04] Mitsubishi Motors North America Announces Ratification of UAW Collective Bargaining Agreement

More...

Supreme Court

[10/06] Court denies appeal of judge's sentencing goof
[10/06] Terror case: Top court won't hear ex-prof's appeal
[10/06] Summary of actions Monday by the Supreme Court

More...

Top Headlines

[10/06] Bush pushes Senate to confirm federal judges
[10/06] Republicans to high court: Stop Palin ethics probe
[10/06] Congress hears Lehman sought millions for execs

More...

Case Summaries

ERISA

[09/30] Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
In a challenge to municipally mandated employer health care spending requirements, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for defendant where the spending requirements are not preempted by ERISA because: 1) the spending requirements do not create an ERISA "plan" as defined by 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1); and 2) the spending requirements do not have an impermissible connection with employers' ERISA plans, or make impermissible reference to such plans.

[09/30] Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.
In an ERISA case alleging breach of fiduciary duty by a plan administrator, motion to dismiss is affirmed where even a plan's sole beneficiary cannot, on behalf of an ERISA plan, bring a pro se action for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a).

[09/29] Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. Health Plan
In an ERISA challenge to denial of benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) issue preclusion does not apply in the ERISA context; 2) by notifying defendant of reasons why the claims administrator should reconsider the denial of claims, plaintiff invoked the plan's internal review procedures; and 3) by letting the initial determination stand, defendant made clear that internal review procedures were complete and thus plaintiff's administrative remedies were exhausted.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.


Main Office 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800 - Milwaukee, WI 53202 - 414.273.3910, 225 West Washington, Suite 2200 - Chicago, IL 60606 - 312.924.0265
Gradient