Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Labor Talk Blog: California District Court Asked to Determine Retroactive Applicability of United States v. Windsor: Decision Could Impact Employers Who Relied on DOMA to Deny Same-Sex Benefits Claims


January 27, 2015

When the Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), finding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional for precluding recognition of same-sex marriage under federal law, the Court did not address the extent to which the decision would apply retroactively. More federal guidance may emerge, however, with Schuett v. FedEx, No. 15-cv-189 (N.D. Cal. 2015), the outcome of which could potentially impact numerous employers who relied on DOMA to deny employee or spousal benefits.

On January 14, 2015, Ms. Stacy Schuett filed suit in the Northern District of California against FedEx Corporation (FedEx), claiming the company improperly refused to pay a mandatory survivor benefit to her as the surviving spouse of a pension plan participant, Ms. Taboada-Hall. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the plan is required to provide a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity to all married participants. The plan does not, however, provide any survivor benefits when an unmarried participant dies before retiring.

Ms. Schuett and Ms. Taboada-Hall were legally married in California on June 19, 2013.  One day later, Ms. Taboada-Hall passed away.  On November 26, 2013, Ms. Schuett submitted a claim for benefits under the plan, including a qualified preretirement survivor annuity worth $400,000.  However, FedEx denied her claim, asserting that the plan only provides a pre-retirement death benefit to a "spouse" as defined by the plan.  The plan defined spouse by reference to Section 3 of DOMA, and at the time of Ms. Taboada-Hall’s death, Section 3 of DOMA had not been overturned, meaning that the plan did not recognize Ms. Taboada-Hall's marriage. Ms. Schuett claims that FedEx may not rely on the now unconstitutional provision but must instead apply the current law, regardless of the date of death (the qualifying event).  After all, Ms. Schuett did not file her claim for benefits until after Windsor had been decided. According to Ms. Schuett, then, because the plan would now recognize all spouses, including same-sex spouses, she is entitled to ERISA's mandatory survivor benefit.

In Windsor, the surviving same-sex spouse was able to recover a tax refund with interest because she had been denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses on the basis of an unconstitutional law, Section 3 of DOMA. The Court did not address whether the decision would apply retroactively,1 and particularly, whether it would apply retroactively in other areas, such as employee benefits.  The IRS has stated its position.  In Notice 2014-19, the IRS stated that retirement plans are not required to recognize same-sex spouses prior to June 26, 2013, the date of the Windsor decision.2 However, the IRS permits employers to amend their plans to reflect the outcome of Windsor prior to June 26. In other words, employers can provide retroactive benefits, but they are not required to do so.

It seems unlikely that the California district court, and perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court, would take a position different from the IRS.  Nonetheless, employers should keep a close eye on the outcome of the decision. If the court finds that Windsor should be applied retroactively to employee benefits, it is possible that many other suits may be filed, and those suits may not be limited to surviving spouse benefits.  For instance, an employee could also assert Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims where the employer denied him or her FMLA leave on the grounds that his or her same-sex spouse did not qualify as a spouse under the FMLA.

For more labor and employment information, visit

1 In the tax context, there are timing rules for seeking tax refunds that would limit potential retroactive impact anyway.

2 "A retirement plan will not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of section 401(a) merely because it did not recognize the same-sex spouse of a participant as a spouse before June 26, 2013." IRS Notice 2014-19.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.