FEATURED
Spring thaw
Like bears emerging from hiberna- tion, employers are venturing back into the HR/bene;ts outsourcing
market, but they’re moving slowly and
sni;ng the air for appealing deals.
According to industry experts, HR/
benefit outsourcing activity is picking up
once again after coming to a near-halt
in 2009.
“We saw a tremendous slowdown last year,” says Pam Peters, director of the HR practice at
Equaterra. While most of this was due to the recession, she notes, it didn’t help that some high-
profile HRO deals turned contentious, resulting in negative publicity and even litigation.
“Last year, decision-making was frozen on anything requiring spending money, especially
if it was going to take awhile to see a return on investment,” says Linda Merritt, research di-
rector, HRO, NelsonHall. “This year, everything is going to pick itself up off the floor. It won’t
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 17)
BY LYNN GRESHAM
ALSO INSIDE
Employee-Consumer
The dangers of multiple meds
Health Care
Texas employers tackle diabetes
Laws and Regs
Auditing the auditors
401(k)s rebound
page 34
APRIL 1, 2010 • VOL 24 NO 4 • BENEFITNEWS.COM
PRIVACY LAW
‘Sexting’ and social media
cases turn heads
BY LYDELL C. BRIDGEFORD
We live in a high-tech world that in-
creasingly blurs the lines between one’s
professional and personal lives. Despite
the uncertainty of what’s fair game and
what’s off limits in our digital culture,
legal commentators say employers
must stay up-to-date on the constantly
moving parts pertaining to workplace
privacy.
This month, the Supreme Court will
hear oral arguments in a case on whether
workers have a “reasonable expectation
of privacy” when sending personal text
messages on company-owned mobile
devices.
The case, City of
Ontario v. Quon
,
involves several SWAT team members
who sent sexually explicit text messages
on government-issued pagers. The Cali-
fornia lawsuit arrives on the Supreme
Court’s door courtesy of the 9th U.S. Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals.
(SEE PRIVACY ON PAGE 49)
Case notes
In June 2008, the appeals court ruled
LEGAL FRONT
Adviser offers lessons learned
from
Hecker v. Deere
BY ROGER LEVY
In its 2009 decision in
Hecker v. Deere &
Co.
, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
reaffirmed the lower court’s dismissal
of the plaintiff’s complaint and ruled
that 401(k) ;duciaries are not in breach
of their responsibilities if they include
funds with excessive fees in the invest-
ment menu and that ;duciaries are not
bound to explain to participants the el-
ements of those fees, speci;cally “rev-
enue-sharing.”
This decision concerns many ad-
herents of fiduciary best practices, and
others have already drawn attention to
its many flaws. However, now that the
8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has re-
manded similar issues for re-hearing by
the lower court in 2009’s
Braden v. Wal-
Mart
, a further look at the Deere decision
is warranted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Zoom level
fit page
fit width
A
A
fullscreen
one page
two pages
share
print
SlideShow
fullscreen
Open Article
article text for page
< previous story
|
next story >
add comment
|
read comments
Share this page with a friend
Save to “My Stuff”
Subscribe to this magazine
Search
Help
