ERISA Violation Legal News Articles & Interviews

Cincinnati, OH The partial settlement of Berry v. FirstGroup America, which seemed like a sure thing less than a month ago, has hit a snag that may require substantial changes. The class action ERISA lawsuit alleged that FirstGroup America removed well-performing investment funds from the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”) and replaced them with newly-launched Hewitt funds. The plan fiduciaries made this change at the urging of Hewitt, its investment adviser (later known as “Aon Hewitt” and now “Aon”). The results were disastrous. Plan participants allegedly lost tens of millions of dollars.

Orlando, FL On November 28, a group of former employees for defense contractor L3Harris Technologies Inc. asked the District Court for the Middle District of Florida to grant class action status to their ERISA lawsuit. Stengl v. L3Harris Technologies Inc. alleges that the fiduciaries of L3 Technologies Master Savings Plan, (the “Master Plan”) a predecessor to the L3Harris retirement plan, (the “L3Harris Plan”) failed to prudently monitor costs and investment performance of plan assets in violation of ERISA.

Hartford, CT  On October 21, 2022, the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut held that participants in the Yale University Retirement Account Plan will have an opportunity to present their allegations of financial mismanagement to a jury. The ERISA lawsuit alleges that plan administrators violated their ERISA fiduciary duty to plan participants by allowing the plan to incur excessive costs, unreasonably delaying a decision to switch to a single recordkeeper and permitting a recordkeeper to aggressively market services outside the plan to participants. The plaintiffs in Vellali v. Yale Univ. allege that these failures cost participants millions of dollars in excess fees.

Richmond, VA On August 2, 2022, Michael Tullgren filed a class action ERISA lawsuit against Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. and fiduciaries of the company’s Capital Accumulation Plan in the Eastern District of Virginia. Tullgren v. Booz Allen Hamilton alleges that company violated its fiduciary duty under ERISA by including poorly performing BlackRock target date funds in its investment menu.

San Jose, CA On November 11, the District Court for the Northern District of California is expected to approve a settlement in Reichert v. Juniper Networks Inc. The class action ERISA lawsuit, like many before it, alleges that the fiduciaries of the Juniper Networks, Inc. 401(k) Plan breached their legal duty to plan participants because of the way that they managed the participants’ retirement savings.

Memphis, TN  Count IX of this class-action ERISA lawsuit, alleges the “Tort of Outrage.” That, if nothing else, captures the flavor of the case.

Green Bay, WI  The Eastern District of Wisconsin has approved a $5.1 million settlement in Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corporation. The settlement brings to an end another ERISA lawsuit, which alleged that plan fiduciaries failed to manage employee retirement funds prudently, as required by ERISA.

Chicago, IL Cast your mind back to 2020. We were staying at home, fully masked, wearing blue gloves, bleaching our kitchen counters and very worried about people living in congregate settings, like nursing homes. Needless to say, we weren’t flying anywhere. United Airlines, like all other airlines, had a powerful incentive to reduce overhead, including employee costs. Such is the background for this ERISA lawsuit.

San Francisco, CA In 2019, the Northern District of California’s decision in Wit v. United Behavioral Health was hailed as a big win for patients seeking coverage parity for mental health disorders. But on March 22, 2022 the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court’s decision. The latest twist in this ERISA lawsuit has thrown longstanding and developing law concerning mental health patients’ rights into turmoil.

Rochester, NY Vollmer v. Xerox Corp., an ERISA lawsuit pending in the Western District of New York, raises a question that weighs heavily on the minds of many retirees. Can an employer offer a valuable incentive to encourage workers to retire and then unilaterally change the deal after the employee is out the door?