Module 6 Presentation

Comparing and Contrasting ERISA and EEOC

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) protects Americans’ retirement assets through the implementation of procedures that qualified plans must adhere to. In the context, the intention is ensuring that fiduciaries do not misuse plan assets. Moreover, it formulates minimum standards for participation, vesting, benefit accrual, and funding of retirement plans. In this case, participants in the retirement plan are entitled to sue either for benefits or breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on the other hand, enforces federal laws regarding discrimination or harassment of job applicants or other employees in the United States of America. In the context, it investigates discrimination charges that are leveled against employers, companies being subject to the law if they have at least 15 employees. Unlike ERISA, EEOC highlights acceptable practices that employers should engage in as well as those that should be shunned. As an illustration, it provides that an employer should not publish a job advertisement that exhibits some preference for a group of people based on sex, color, age, and the like.

Although some similarities exist between ERISA and EEOC, it is worth noting that the functionality and provisions therein involve a great deal of differences. In my view, the appropriate methodology for the presentation of the differences would be the discussion of individual provisions of both ERISA and EEOC.

ERISA cover involves a myriad of benefits, one of which is medical, surgical, or hospital care. Under it, a participant who is admitted to medical facilities either for basic medical care or comprehensive check-up enjoys ERISA cover. The other benefit is that of sickness, accident, disability, or death. The implication in the case is that a participant who is admitted to the hospital enjoys full medical cover. Moreover, a beneficiary who suffers an accident and sustains an injury of whichever magnitude would receive some benefits to enable them to push on with a decent life. In case of death, however, the participant’s beneficiaries receive compensation for the avoidance of interruption of their lives due to the loss of the breadwinner. The cover also entails unemployment benefits for the extension of a stipend on a regular basis during the period of loss of employment (Anderson, 2015). In this case, the stipend may be extended on a monthly basis to enable the participant to cater to the needs of his family members. The cover also entails vacation benefits, whereby the participants who are on leave continue to enjoy the compensation benefits they would have if they were working. The benefits therein encourage participants to proceed on vacation, where they gain the opportunity to refresh and plan for future endeavors. Notably, the cover also involves apprenticeship and training programs for the delivery of basic employability skills, the knowledge offered therein being aligned to the current job market needs. Therein, the participant may elect to receive the skills or have a beneficiary acquire them. The cover also entails daycare center facility expenses for the participants to have a safe and affordable place to leave their children as they embark on day-to-day activities. The benefit relieves the participant from the burden of hiring a house help to take care of the child whenever the participant or close family members are away. Scholarship funds are the other benefit that accrues to participants as a result of enrolling with ERISA, whereby the beneficiaries enjoy the opportunity to study courses of choice in higher learning institutions for employability prospects and general career growth. The drafters of the cover also recognized that participants may find themselves in situations of legal proceedings, in which case ERISA offers prepaid legal services (Koenig et al., 2015). The outcome would be the avoidance of losses and pitfalls associated with litigations. The two programs may, however, be considered essential in the workplace for employee contentedness and satisfaction and the application of both would be necessary.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) non-discriminative policies and guidelines apply to all staffing processes namely recruitment, application, and hiring, job referrals, assignments, benefits, and discipline. Other than the enforcement of fairness in staffing, the commission advocates for inclusion in the provision of a reasonable accommodation to an applicant with a disability. In this case, accommodations may include a ramp and interpreters for the deaf (O'Neill, 2018). Other than disability, the organization places the emphasis on the accommodation of employees’ religious beliefs and practices. In the case, the only relief would be the likelihood that accommodating the varied religious beliefs may cause difficulty or unwarranted expense of the employer. As previously mentioned, the harassment of employees on any grounds is considered illegal, the illegality extending to the harassment of individuals on account of complaining of discrimination. It, therefore, follows that an employee may participate in discrimination lawsuits against the employer organization and should not be harassed whatsoever for the undertaking.

In general, ERISA outlines the benefits that participants should receive in the workplace to meet their physical and psychological needs, while EEOC focuses on equality and non-discrimination of employees for the avoidance of psychological torture associated with discrimination.

Some similarities, however, exist between ERISA and EEOC, one of them being the insistence on training and apprenticeship programs to participants or beneficiaries for increased earning opportunities. The two benefits also involve the aspect of employee remuneration although EEOC places emphasis on equality in the administration of compensation benefits. Moreover, the discussions above suggest that both ERISA and EEOC advocate the achievement of an enabling working environment for increased commitment among workers, the later focusing on the realization of equality as a way of caring for the psychological needs of employees.

References

Anderson, A. J. (2015). Leveling the Playing Field among the NFL, Clubs, and Players-by Amending the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Marq. Sports L. Rev., 26, 199.

Koenig, G., Fichtner, J. J., & Gale, W. G. (2018). Supplemental Transition Accounts for Retirement: A Proposal to Increase Retirement Income Security and Reform Social Security. Public Policy & Aging Report, 28(suppl_1), S22-S34.

O'Neill, J. L. J. (2018). US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alorica, Inc.