Docket: Employee Pensions and Benefits
Case Name: Smith v. Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing (Employee Benefits)
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 20-2708
Filed: 1/21/21
Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF)
Case Issue: Is an arbitration clause in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) invalid and unenforceable because it prohibits relief that section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) expressly permits?
Case Name: Rutledge v. Pharmacy Care Management Assn.
Court: U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket: 18-450
Decided: 12/10/2020
Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)
Case Result: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ERISA does not preempt Arkansas’ PBM transparency law.
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: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litig (In re)
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 18-346
Decided: 12/7/2020
Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)
Case Result: In a summary, nonprecedential order, the Second Circuit held that Anthem, as an insurance provider, and Express Scripts, as a pharmacy benefit manager, were not acting as fiduciaries under ERISA when they negotiated prescription drug prices, even though the agreements affected an ERISA plan.
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: 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: 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.