Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act

By Gene Markin on March 4, 2011
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

As a long-term employee, it is important to know what is happening with your pension plan, but more importantly, what could happen.  There is an enormous body of law that covers retirement plans, however, given its convoluted nature, a simple question or issue may require a lengthy and complex answer.  Nonetheless, below, and following in later posts, is a condensed discussion of the general law and some of the more prominent issues that arise in the context of pension plans.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), established a comprehensive regulatory and remedial scheme designed with a curative aim to protect individual pension rights and is liberally construed to safeguard the interests of fund participants and beneficiaries and to preserve the integrity of fund assets. 

ERISA’s policy is to protect the interests of employee-benefit plan participants and beneficiaries, by requiring the disclosure and reporting to them of financial and other plan information; by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries; by providing appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the federal courts; and by improving the equitable character and the soundness of such plans through requirements as to the vesting of accrued benefits of employees with significant periods of service, minimum standards as to funding, and a requirement as to coverage by plan termination insurance.
   
Pension funds are governed by ERISA and it is well established that ERISA displaces all state law purporting to relate to private pension plans. The statute, however, does not address many of the issues that arise in the normal course of the administration of such pension plans. Therefore, in a situation where the statute does not provide explicit instructions, it is well settled that Congress intended that the federal courts would fill in the gaps by developing, in light of reason, experience, and common sense, a federal common law of rights and obligations imposed by the statute.

Photo of Gene Markin Gene Markin

Gene Markin is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Complex Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Groups where he concentrates his practice on complex litigation matters involving copyright protection and infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement and enforcement, trade secret litigation, false advertising, domain…

Gene Markin is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Complex Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Groups where he concentrates his practice on complex litigation matters involving copyright protection and infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement and enforcement, trade secret litigation, false advertising, domain name disputes, unfair competition, class actions, fraud and consumer fraud, shareholder and partner disputes, breach of contract, RICO actions, and state licensing agency appeals.

If you have any questions, please contact Gene Markin, Esq. at (609) 895-7248 or gmarkin@stark-stark.com.

Read more about Gene MarkinEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    New Jersey Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Stark & Stark
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo