Skip to content
 

Docket: Employee Pensions and Benefits

Case Name:  Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. California Secure Choice Retirement Sav. Prog.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-15591

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 10/21/2020

Case Issue: CalSavers allows employees who work for employers that do not have employee benefit plans to save money through payroll deductions, investing their money in state-created individual retirement accounts. Does ERISA, the federal law governing employee benefit plans, prevent states from setting up these programs?


Case Name: Indep. Insur. Agents and Brokers v. N.Y.

Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division—Third Department Docket: 530047

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 8/10/2020

Case Issue: Is New York’s Suitability and Best Interest Rule, which requires insurance agents and brokers to act in the best interests of consumers, a valid regulation?


Case Name: Hartshorne  v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York

Court: New York Supreme Ct., Schenectady County   Docket: 2019-1989

Filed: 9/10/19 Motion to Dismiss Decided: 7/15/2020

Watch Video and Read Complaint (PDF), Press Release, Corp Opposition Brief (PDF),  Church Opposition Brief (PDF) Decision/Order (PDF) and Press Release

Case Issue: Did the Defendants, including the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, violate New York state laws concerning contracts, promises, and fiduciaries when they either stopped paying or drastically reduced the pensions of former employees of St. Clare's Hospital?


Case Name: Lake v. State Health Plan

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 436 PA 13-4

Filed: 6/29/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue: Is the health insurance benefit North Carolina promised to state and municipal retirees a form of deferred compensation?


Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Insurance

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir.  Docket: 20-3226

Filed: 6/10/2020

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: Was the district court correct in its initial finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees?


Case Name: Thole v. U.S. Bank

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 17-1712

Decided: 6/1/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Court held that when fiduciary misconduct is not likely to affect a defined benefit plan participant’s actual receipt of benefits, the participant has no standing under ERISA, even though the statute creates a right of action for such a lawsuit.


Case Name: Divane v. Northwestern University

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir.     Docket: 18-2569

Decided: 3/25/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: The court held that fiduciaries did not breach their duties, the fees for the Plaintiffs’ investments were not too high, and offering over 200 investment options was not unreasonable. 


Case Name: Rutledge v. Pharmacy Care Management Assn.

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct.  Docket: 18-450

Filed: 3/2/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Issue:  Many states have passed laws regulating health care market players to address rising health care costs. Does ERISA, the federal law that protects employee benefits, say that states can't do this because the state laws could potentially affect employee benefit plans in some remote way?


Case Name: Intel v. Sulyma

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 18-1116

Decided: 2/26/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Result: The Court, per Justice Alito, held that receiving ERISA disclosures did not automatically mean that the participant had "actual knowledge" of a breach of fiduciary duty, so the three-year statute of limitations did not apply. 


Case Name: Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco

Court: Cal. Supreme Court Docket: S259558

Decided: 1/29/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Letter (PDF)  

Case Issue: Can a public entity be held liable for age discrimination in disability retirement benefits under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), where the discrimination is mandated by a facially discriminatory legislative provision requiring payment of reduced retirement benefits to persons hired after age 40?

Case Result: Sought relief was achieved. California Supreme Court was urged not to review an appellate court decision favorable to the economic security of California state retirees and the Court denied review.


Case Name: Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Dir. Docket: 18-15281

Filed: 9/20/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Should the Ninth Circuit grant rehearing en banc of its panel's ruling that employers, via arbitration contract, can strip individual 401(k) retirement plan participants of their right under ERISA to bring federal court actions for fiduciary breach on behalf of the entire plan, see 29 U.C.S. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1109(a).


Case Name: Teets v. Great-West

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 18-1019

Decided: 4/22/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision

Case Result: Appellate court upheld the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's ERISA claims on the basis that Great West was not acting as a fiduciary.


Case Name: Brotherston v. Putnam Investments

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 1st Cir.     Docket: 17-1711

Decided: 10/15/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The appeals court reinstated a case alleging that Putnam breached its fiduciary duty by, among other things, packing the 401(k) plan with an excessive number of high-cost proprietary Putnam funds. 


Case Name: Munro v. Univ. of S. Cal.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir.     Docket: 17-55550

Decided: 7/24/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision

Case Result: The court denied USC's motion to compel arbitration because the Retirement Plan was not a party to the arbitration agreement. 


Case Name: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litig (In re)

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 18-346

Filed: 5/2/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Did the complaint plausibly allege that Anthem and Express Scripts are both fiduciaries under ERISA's functional definition of a fiduciary and that they both breached their fiduciary duties? 


Case Name: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (Motion to Intervene and Petition for Rehearing)

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 17-10238

Decided: 5/2/2018

Read AARP's Petition for Rehearing (PDF) and Motion to Intervene (PDF) Decision (PDF)

Case Result: In a 2-to-1 order, the Fifth Circuit panel denied AARP's motion to intervene to file a petition for rehearing en banc to review the court's invalidation of the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule that protects consumers from conflicts of interest when saving for their retirement.


Case Name: National Ass'n for Fixed Annuities v. DOL

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. Docket: 16-5345

Dismissed: 3/23/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Order of Dismissal (PDF)

Case Result: The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal.


Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. 

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir.     Docket: 17-4125

Filed: 3/16/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Was the district court correct in finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees?


Case Name: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 17-10238

Decided: 5/2/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The fifth circuit vacated the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule that protects consumers from conflicts of interest when saving for their retirement. 


Case Name: Santomenno v. Transamerica Life Ins.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 16-56418

Decided: 2/23/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Result: The Ninth Circuit held that retirement plan service providers cannot be liable as fiduciaries under federal benefits law for negotiating their compensation with employers or receiving the agreed-upon payments because the employer sponsoring the 401(k) plan is free to reject the deal. The court also found that Transamerica was not acting as an ERISA fiduciary when it withdrew no more than its predetermined compensation from 401(k) plan accounts because these actions were ministerial in nature and could not form the basis of a fiduciary breach claim. 


Some of the content presented here is in Adobe PDF format. You will need the free Acrobat Reader to access these files.