Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Department of Labor Rule Paves the Way for State-Run Retirement Plans
October 13, 2016

On August 24, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) announced a final rule governing the exemption of state-run retirement plans from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Over 30 states have either implemented or are considering such plans. One major hurdle to their broader adoption has been uncertainty over whether they would be governed by ERISA, resulting in unwanted preemption of relevant state laws.

The rule adopts a safe harbor exemption reminiscent of, but critically distinguishable from, the one created in 1975 for IRAs. To qualify for exemption, the plan must, among other things, prohibit employer contributions, and require the state to implement and administer the plan and “assume[] responsibility for the security of payroll deductions and employee savings.” Perhaps most important, employee participation must be “voluntary,” as opposed to the more stringent “completely voluntary” standard used in the traditional IRA safe harbor. Under the “completely voluntary” standard, IRAs were exempted from ERISA only if employees had to opt in. Because a central attribute of state-run plans is automatic enrollment — which would fail the “completely voluntary” standard — the DOL established a mere “voluntary” standard. Automatic enrollment plans meet this requirement so long as employees are free to opt out. The DOL will next consider extending this rule to plans administered by cities and counties.

Although the DOL is enthusiastic, not everyone is so sanguine. In addition to public cost, critics note potential conflicts of interest by investment managers. And, in the plan currently under consideration in California, an investment board would be allowed to earmark certain investment returns to curb losses in a bear market. Aside from the difficulty of defining the contours of such a program, some wonder whether short term investors might never benefit from such a reserve and might actually lose investment returns otherwise earned.

These concerns are compounded by the fact that participants are likely to be unsophisticated and apathetic investors. Though IRAs have long been widely available, only those who are not otherwise invested in a retirement plan of their own will be automatically enrolled. It is unlikely that such individuals will fully investigate and understand how state-run plans compare to traditional IRAs.
Related Practices
Securities Litigation and Enforcement
Related Industries
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.