Your ERISA Watch is short-staffed this week as we take much-needed end of summer vacations. But ERISA never sleeps, so rather than leave our loyal readers in the lurch, we are still publishing, albeit with no highlighted case of the week. We hope you had a restful Labor Day!
Below is a summary of this
It was a busy ERISA week in the federal courts, especially at the appellate level where the circuit courts issued no fewer than five decisions, three of them published. It was too difficult to focus on just one case, so we’ve decided to let you choose your own adventure among the notable decisions below:
Unlike employee contributions, employer contributions to 401(k) plans do not immediately vest, but instead do so under plan and ERISA vesting provisions, generally after three to five years of service with the employer. What happens to these contributions when employees leave covered employment before that time is at the center of numerous recently-filed lawsuits, including
Pizarro v. Home Depot, Inc., No. 22-13643, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 3633379 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024) (Before Circuit Judges Branch, Grant, and Carnes)
Your ERISA Watch is cheating a little in this edition, as our case of the week is not actually from last week, but the week before. Rather than relegate
Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, No. 6:24-cv-163-JDK, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2024 WL 3554879 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2024) (Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle)
American Council of Life Insurers v. United States Dep’t of Labor, No. 4:24-cv-00482-O, 2024 WL 3572297 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2024)
Suchin v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, No. Civ. JKB-23-01243, 2024 WL 3495778 (D. Md. Jul. 22, 2024) (Judge James K. Bredar)
Lovers of Don Quixote, and we count ourselves among them, might fondly recall scenes of Sancho Panza sitting as a judge and earnestly attempting to dole out justice. He endeavored, if not always
Chavez v. Plan Benefit Servs., Inc., No. 22-50368, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 3409147 (5th Cir. July 15, 2024) (Before Circuit Judges Wiener, Stewart, and Engelhardt)
This published opinion is the third by the Fifth Circuit in this class action challenging the imposition of excessive fees in the administration of ERISA-governed retirement and welfare
Smith v. UnitedHealth Grp., No. 23-2369, __ F. 4th __, 2024 WL 3321646 (8th Cir. Jul. 8, 2024) (Before Circuit Judges Colloton, Erickson, and Kobes)
Cross-plan offsetting is a controversial practice – sometimes referred to as “self-help” for third-party administrators of healthcare plans and, alternatively, “robbing Peter to pay Paul” – to which plan
Goldfarb v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 23-10309, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 3271012 (11th Cir. July 2, 2024) (Before Circuit Judges William Pryor, Jill Pryor, and Marcus)
Of all the types of ERISA welfare benefit disputes, accidental death cases are perhaps the most fascinating. In these cases, everyone agrees that the insured
Spence v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00552-O, 2024 WL 3092453 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2024) (Judge Reed O’Connor)
There has been a great deal of controversy engendered by corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, and ERISA-governed benefit plans are becoming a big part of that debate. Corporations have increasingly focused not only on
