Photo of Jack Lund

Jack Lund is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office where he is a member of the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation practice group. Mr. Lund advises clients on all aspects of employee benefits including tax-qualified retirement plans, health and welfare plans, Individual Retirement Arrangements, global incentive plans, executive compensation, and corporate transactions. In so doing, Mr. Lund is particularly adept at leveraging his public policy experience to craft creative strategies for solving his clients’ most difficult regulatory and legislative problems.

Last night (Wednesday, March 18, 2020) the President signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act after it passed the Senate in the afternoon by a vote of 90-8.  The Act requires all private health plans to cover COVID-19 diagnostic testing—coverage that most insured and large self-insured health plans already are providing.  The Act also requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to ten weeks of paid FMLA leave and two weeks of paid sick leave to employees affected by COVID-19.  For small employers subject to these new leave mandates, the Act provides tax credits to help offset the cost of the mandates.  This means that the tax credits are not available to employers with 500 or more employees, even if they provide paid leave equal to or in excess of that required of smaller employers under the Act.  It is noteworthy that the Senate voted down amendments that would have expanded the bill’s paid FMLA leave or replaced the bill’s paid leave with state unemployment benefits.

Continue Reading Impact of New Coronavirus Mandatory Leave and Testing Legislation Largely Limited to Smaller Employers

On July 10, 2019, the Sixth Circuit considered vexing questions of statutory interpretation in an ERISA case.  A dispute over whether a transaction bonus plan was an ERISA employee pension benefit plan hinged on the meaning of two terms common in federal statutes: “results in” and “extending to.”  While the meaning of the statute was plain to the entire panel, Judges Stranch and Thapar quarreled over the evidence that a court might rightly consider when interpreting a statute—in this case, ERISA.  Judge Thapar argues that “[c]ourts should consider adding [corpus linguistics] to their tool belts.”

Continue Reading Corpus Linguistics and ERISA Litigation