Reader Responses December 19, 2016

SURVEY SAYS: Embarrassing Holiday Party Moments

We recently covered a survey about embarrassing manager behaviors at office holiday parties.
Reported by

Last week, I asked NewsDash readers, “Have you had or witnessed an embarrassing moment at an office holiday party?”

Only 14.3% of responding readers admitted to having had an embarrassing moment at an office holiday party, while 85.7% said they did not. However, 57.1% reported they have witnessed an embarrassing moment at an office holiday party, and 42.9% have not.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Not all shared the embarrassing moment they had or witnessed, with one saying, “I refuse to comment on the grounds that I may incriminate myself—or at least embarrass myself!” Most embarrassing moments shared involved alc.ohol.

Embarrassing Holiday Moments 

Drunk junior associate came on to the boss’s wife.

Drunk master of ceremonies.

The usual embarrassment: someone drank too much and had to leave early.

Male senior partner of law firm assumed all the women in the office enjoyed his annual embrace and kiss at holiday party. UGH!!!!

Getting too drunk and throwing up.

I refuse to comment on the grounds that I may incriminate myself – or at least embarrass myself!

A woman who had too many holiday spirits, tried to sit on a table and promptly leaned back and fell off the back of the table. She had a long dress on that went over her head and it took her several excruciating moments with her bloomers on display to everyone to get herself together and back on her feet.

In the few verbatim comments, respondents also noted that drinking is usually the reason for embarrassing moments. A few expressed distaste for office parties, and a couple suggested something they’d rather have than an office holiday party. No Editor’s Choice this week.

A big thank you to all who participated in the survey!

Verbatim 

Official holiday parties are generally enjoyable and embarrassment free. I choose to avoid the unofficial parties where coworkers drink too much and get stupid. It makes it difficult to show respect for them at work. I'd just rather not know.

Hate them, avoid them at all costs.

I do not want to see it, hear it, know of it moments so if the holiday party is outside of work hours, I do not attend. It is far better that way

I would rather have cash.

In 10 years, my company has gone from off-site, after hours events to in-house, lunch hour gatherings. It's actually kind of nice, although at this point we could just stop altogether.

Keep on drinking!

Some people don't know when to quit drinking. It's a shame.

A nice gift, and an afternoon off while people have the option to get together is often much more appreciated than a mandatory attendance party.

NOTE: Responses reflect the opinions of individual readers and not necessarily the stance of Asset International or its affiliates.
Compliance December 16, 2016

Plaintiffs Still Pushing Tibble vs Edison Through Federal Courts

After multiple trips through the district and appellate court systems and consideration by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, Tibble vs Edison took another step forward today. 
Reported by

On remand from the Supreme Court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals once again heard “en banc” arguments in Tibble vs Edison, deciding this time that it would vacate the lower district court’s judgment in favor of the defense.

Industry watchers will be familiar with the long-running litigation, which has been moving through the various courts for more than a decade. The case represents one of the first lawsuits filed against employers accused of permitting excessive fees in the retirement plan and failing to adequately monitor the performance of investments offered to employees.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Specifically, the court of appeals had previously affirmed the district court’s holding that the plan beneficiaries’ claims regarding the selection of mutual funds in 1999 were time-barred under the six-year limit of 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1). However, the Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, observing that federal law imposes on fiduciaries an ongoing duty to monitor investments even absent a change in circumstances.

Rejecting defendants’ contention that the beneficiaries waived the ongoing-duty-to-monitor argument, the “en banc” court held that the beneficiaries did not forfeit the argument either in the district court or on appeal. Rather, defendants themselves failed to raise the waiver argument in their initial appeal, and thus forfeited this argument.

The en banc court distinguished Phillips v. Alaska Hotel & Rest. Emps. Pension Fund, 944 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1991), which held that when a fiduciary violated a continuing duty over time, the three-year limitations period set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 1113(2) began when the plaintiff had actual knowledge of a breach in a series of discrete but related breaches. In that case, the panel of judges held that Phillips did not apply to the continuing duty claims at issue under § 1113(1). Thus, only a “breach or violation,” such as a fiduciary’s failure to conduct its regular review of plan investments, need occur within the six-year statutory period of § 1113(1); the initial investment need not be made within the statutory period.

“Looking to the law of trusts to determine the scope of defendants’ fiduciary duty to monitor investments, the en banc court held that the duty of prudence required defendants to reevaluate investments periodically and to take into account their power to obtain favorable investment products, particularly when those products were substantially identical—other than their lower cost—to products they had already selected,” the appeals court explains. “The en banc court vacated the district court’s decisions concerning the funds added to the ERISA plan before 2001 and remanded on an open record for trial on the claim that, regardless of whether there was a significant change in circumstances, defendants should have switched from retail class fund shares to institutional-class fund shares to fulfill their continuing duty to monitor the appropriateness of the trust investments.”

As such, the en banc court directed the district court to reevaluate its award of costs and attorneys’ fees in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the en banc court’s decision.

The full text of the decision is here. 

«