Benefits Bryan Cave

Main Content

Meet the CCPA: New Privacy Rules for California Employees

Employers with operations in California should be aware of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), a new privacy law that applies to data collected about California-based employees.   HR professionals should be aware that, although the CCPA refers to “consumers,” as currently drafted the CCPA’s definition of a “consumer” will apply to California-based employees.

Which employers will have to comply with the CCPA?

Employers with employees in California will need to comply with the CCPA if their business falls into one of the following three categories:

1. Their business buys, sells, or shares the “personal information” of 50,000 “consumers” or “devices”;

2. Their business has gross revenue greater than $25 million; or

3. Their business derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from sharing personal information.

What are the key implications of having to comply with the CCPA?

The Employers who

There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch…But There are Free Snacks

Something to gnaw on during your lunch hour today (sorry, we couldn’t resist):  the IRS recently released TAM 201903017, which ruled that free employee meals provided by an employer were includible in its employees’ taxable income – and therefore subject to employment taxes.

Section 119(a)(1) of the Code excludes the value of meals provided to an employee by an employer if the meals are furnished on the employer’s business premises “for the convenience of the employer.”  The “convenience” test can be met if the employer has a substantial noncompensatory business reason for providing the free meals, such as that the employee must be available for emergency calls or that there are no nearby alternatives to secure a meal within the employee’s meal period.  Under Section 119(b)(4) of the Code, if more than 50% of an employer’s employees on its premises receive meals that satisfy the “convenience” test,

ISS Updates its U.S. Compensation and Equity Compensation Plan Policies for 2019

In December 2018, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) published updates to its FAQs for its U.S. Compensation Policies and its policies related to U.S. Equity Compensation Plans with respect to annual meetings occurring on or after February 1, 2019.  While ISS did not make major changes for 2019, reporting companies should be aware of the following key updates.

  • The passing scores for all U.S. Equity Plan Scorecard (“EPSC”) models remain the same as in effect for the 2018 proxy season. However, ISS made the following notable changes and clarifications to EPSC’s scoring model:
    • Full points will be awarded for the change in control (CIC) vesting factor if the plan discloses with specificity the CIC vesting treatment for both time- and performance-based awards. If a plan is silent on CIC vesting treatment or provides for discretionary vesting, then no points will be awarded for

Glass Lewis Updates Proxy Voting Guidelines for 2019

Glass Lewis Updates Proxy Voting Guidelines for 2019

November 30, 2018

Authored by: Denise Erwin and Lisa Van Fleet

On October 24th, Glass Lewis published its updated proxy voting guidelines for 2019.  Some key compensation-related changes for reporting companies to keep in mind are highlighted below:

Excise Tax Gross-ups

When any new excise tax gross-ups are provided for in executive employment agreements, Glass Lewis may recommend against members of the compensation committee, particularly where a company previously committed not to provide gross-ups in the future.  Glass Lewis is particularly opposed to gross-ups related to excise taxes on excess parachute payments.  New gross-up provisions with respect to these excise taxes may lead to negative recommendations for a company’s say-on-pay proposal.

Contractual Payments and Arrangements

The new guidelines clarify the terms that may contribute to a negative voting recommendation on say-on-pay proposals.  When evaluating sign-on and severance arrangements, Glass Lewis will consider the size and design of any payments as well as U.S. market practice.  Glass Lewis will consider the executive’s

2019 Qualified Plan Limits Released

The Internal Revenue Service released the 2019 dollar limits for retirement plans, as adjusted under Code Section 415(d). We have summarized the new limits (along with the limits from the last few years) in the chart below.

Type of Limitation

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Elective Deferrals (401(k), 403(b), 457(b)(2) and 457(c)(1)) $19,000 $18,500 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Section 414(v) Catch-Up Deferrals to 401(k), 403(b), 457(b), or SARSEP Plans (457(b)(3) and 402(g) provide separate catch-up rules to be considered as appropriate) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 SIMPLE Salary Deferral $13,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 SIMPLE 401(k) or regular SIMPLE plans, Catch-Up Deferrals $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 415 limit for Defined Benefit Plans $225,000 $220,000 $215,000 $210,000 $210,000 415 limit for Defined Contribution Plans $56,000 $55,000 $54,000 $53,000 $53,000 Annual Compensation Limit $280,000 $275,000 $270,000 $265,000 $265,000 Annual Compensation Limit for Grandfathered Participants in Governmental Plans Which

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

Last week, we discussed four of the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself.

On Monday, we discussed failures to timely update plan documents.

On Tuesday, we discussed an SPD’s failure to accurately describe the terms of a plan.

On Wednesday, we discussed a plan’s definition of compensation.

On Thursday, we discussed delinquent contributions.

We hope you enjoyed this refresher on best compliance practices.  For our last post in this five-part series, we discuss a topic that never goes out of style…

Plan Governance

Description

Plan governance generally encompasses the oversight policies and procedures that plans enact to ensure good process and operational compliance. The following discussion addresses two specific aspects of plan governance—those which are

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself.

On Monday, we discussed failures to timely update plan documents.

On Tuesday, we discussed an SPD’s failure to accurately describe the terms of a plan.

On Wednesday, we discussed a plan’s definition of compensation.

In this, our penultimate post, we discuss the most common mistake of all: delinquent contributions.

Delinquent Contributions

Description

Employers are required to contribute employees’ elective deferrals to the plan on the earliest date that the contributions can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets, and in no event later than the fifteenth (15th) business day of the month following the month in which the participant contributions are withheld or received by

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

Welcome to the third installment of this series! This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself. Each day we will discuss a new compliance mistake. So far, we have discussed failures to timely update plan documents and an SPD’s failure to accurately describe plan terms. Today we discuss a plan’s definition of compensation.

Wrong Definition of Compensation

Description

401(k) plans may use different definitions of compensation for different purposes. For instance, plans may use any definition of compensation for certain purposes, but must use one of two statutory definitions of compensation found in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) for certain other purposes. For example, (i) the IRC § 415 definition of compensation must be used when calculating

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself. Each day we will discuss a new compliance mistake. Yesterday, we discussed failures to timely update plan documents. Today, we are discussing an SPD-related failure. Check in through the end of the week for more compliance mistakes!

SPD Fails to Accurately Describe Plan Terms

Description

A Summary Plan Description (“SPD”), by definition, must accurately summarize a plan. This means that all descriptions in the SPD must accurately describe the terms of the underlying plan document.

Potential Liability

If an SPD includes different provisions than the corresponding plan document, a court may enforce the provisions of the SPD rather than those of the plan. The facts that a plaintiff must prove to receive this

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 7: Business and Operational Issues Associated with Forming an AHP: Engaging an Insurance Carrier

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018 and its final rule on June 19, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.