FLSA income security
It’s true that the ERISA has laid down the provision of recovering the damages in the case of breach of obligation by the fiduciaries . But there are some exceptional cases . If the trust has extended any measures to help the defendants, like investing the property in money markets and there by they intend to utilize the profits for the beneficiaries, then such intention is justifiable.
Moreover ERISA has extended the exclusive and discretionary power to fiduciaries for the better management and proper utilization of assets under sec. 403(a). (32). Sec. 404(c) further protects the fiduciaries by permitting them to invest in their individual account from a range of investment alternatives. Still ERISA clearly prohibits the use of assets other than the interest of beneficiaries. (sec. 1109(a)). If the beneficiaries firmly believes and has adequate evidence that the fiduciaries are using the property for their own purpose ,the beneficiaries can recover fiduciaries profits. So in the given case Leigh and Dusek have the chance to win the case but at the risk of ample proof.
2. Here, in this given case the major issue is whether the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a non probate asset is revoked
Need essay sample on "FLSA income security"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Rev. Code, 11. 07. 010(2)(b)(i) 1994) Since the Washington statutes contains both family law and probate law there is a chance of pre emption of family law in conflict with ERISA (Boggs v. Boggs, 1997) FLSA income security 2 Moreover the state statute cannot be referred to ERISA plans to an extent that would require pre emption because it never apply immediately to an ERISA . On the benefits of these findings the benefit can be passed to children of Egelholf . 3.
The petitioner can claim under sec 7(a) of FLSA as the employer has the responsibility to compensate the worker who works over 40 hours a week. But under the implement regulations of FLSA which includes the ‘long test’, an employee can be exempted who are paid “on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $155 per week. ”(29 C. F. R. § 541. 2(e)(1))Moreover another test’ -short test’ can be applied to the employees who are paid “on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $250 per week.
” Here the respondent has to prove that petitioner was paid on a salary or fee basis. But here, the petitioner was not at all rendering any productive work in the company and the company was still compensating him. The petitioner was an administrative employee paid on a salary basis. Therefore, he is not entitled to time-and-a-half for any overtime he worked during his tenure as Union vice-president because Argo-Tech did not violate the FLSA. 4. The supreme court in recent case Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v.
Sperling(1989) held that employees can continue to join together to assert their claims against their employers. For a collective action, it should be incorporated under section 216(b) and Rule 23. To make his claim valid under section 216(b) a plaintiff should opt in to the action by filing consent to join for similar rights and Rule 23 actions a class member is bound by the results unless he or she affirmatively opts out of the class . Moreover the action should be similarly situated as representative plaintiffs to meet the commonality and typicality under sec. 216(b). So in this case, the employees are working under same employer and their claim is for same rights . They can win the case by resorting to the provision of sec. 216(b)
References 1. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 2. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) 3. List of United States Supreme Court’s cases Vol. 532 4. Reicher Luftman ,Reish and Cohen What It Means to Be Prudent Under ERISA, Journal of Pension Benefits, Volume 12, Number 3, Aspen Publishers, Inc April 2005