Skip to content

Menu

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

U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 Affect Employee Benefit Plans and Plan Sponsors

By Melissa Ostrower on June 27, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Two decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court on June 26, 2013 expand same-sex marriage rights and carry significant implications for employee benefit plans and employers sponsoring the plans. In United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013), the Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”), which denied federal recognition of legally-married same-sex couples, was unconstitutional. Issued on the same day, Hollingsworth, et al. v. Perry, No. 12-144 (June 26, 2013), held that proponents of California’s “Proposition 8”, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, lacked standing to appeal a lower court ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Windsor and Hollingsworth will significantly impact employee benefit plans, their administration and the taxation of employee benefits. Plan sponsors, with counsel’s assistance, must examine their benefit plan documents, administrative forms (including beneficiary designation forms, benefit election forms, etc.) and systems to ensure that benefits are structured and administered in a manner that is consistent with applicable law. The decisions also raise a host of new questions and issues that will need to be resolved through legislative and regulatory guidance. For additional information about the Supreme Court’s decisions in Windsor and Hollingsworth and their impact on employers, please refer to this Jackson Lewis article: http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=4532.

Photo of Melissa Ostrower Melissa Ostrower

Melissa Ostrower is a principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group. She counsels clients in a broad range of employee benefit matters, including general compliance and administration of…

Melissa Ostrower is a principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group. She counsels clients in a broad range of employee benefit matters, including general compliance and administration of qualified retirement plans and nonqualified retirement plans.

Melissa assists clients with welfare plan issues involving cafeteria plans, health plans, flexible spending accounts, COBRA and the Affordable Care Act. She regularly speaks on all benefits issues including federal health care reform, fiduciary compliance and executive compensation.

Melissa regularly advises on executive compensation matters, including issues related to compliance with Section 409A, 162(m) and 280G of the Internal Revenue Code.

Melissa represents clients in connection with Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor audits and information requests. She also regularly assists clients in fixing plan operational and document errors. Melissa negotiates with benefits providers, volume submitter and prototype vendors, TPAs, insurers and auditors.

Melissa also advises clients in connection with phantom and equity based compensation arrangements.

Read more about Melissa OstrowerEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Benefits Law Advisor
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • 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