The United States Supreme Court recently agreed to hear two ERISA class-action cases next term that were decided by the lower courts in favor of plan participants. First, the Supreme Court agreed to review Retirement Plans Committee of IBM et al. v. Larry W. Jander, an employer stock-drop case from the Second Circuit. IBM workers claimed that IBM’s Retirement Plans Committee breached its fiduciary duty by allowing workers’ retirement funds to be invested in artificially-inflated IBM stock. The Second Circuit applied the “more harm than good” standard that was set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer and found that the Committee did not meet this standard as it could not have reasonably thought it was better to do nothing rather than something when they learned of IBM’s failing microchip division.
Second, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma, a Ninth Circuit case. At issue is when a participant has actual knowledge of a potential fiduciary breach for purposes of applying the statute of limitations period. Intel argued that a participant has actual knowledge, and the statute of limitations period begins to run, when the participant receives the financial documents. The Ninth Circuit rejected Intel’s argument and found that a participant has actual knowledge of an alleged breach, and the three-year statute of limitations period begins to run, when the participant reads the provided financial documents.
There is ongoing speculation surrounding how the Supreme Court will rule in these two cases and many plan fiduciaries are hopeful that the Supreme Court will overturn the Circuit Courts’ opinions.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Antoinette Schindel practices in KMK Law's Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Antoinette regularly advises employers regarding Affordable Care Act (ACA) compliance issues, including health coverage and ...
- Partner
Kelly MacDonald advises clients on all aspects of health plans, welfare plans, and qualified retirement plans (including defined benefit plans, 401(k) plans, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), and profit sharing plans ...
- Partner
Lisa Wintersheimer Michel is the leader of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Her practice primarily involves all aspects of qualified retirement plans, including profit sharing plans, 401(k) plans ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- EEOC
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Religion Discrimination
- Title VII
- NLRB
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Diversity
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- NLRA
- Labor Law
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Federal Trade Commission
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- FMLA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Arbitration
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ADAAA
- Whistleblower
- Unions
- United States Supreme Court
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- SECURE Act
- Environmental Law
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?
- Uncertain Ground: The NLRB, EEOC, and the Fallout of Presidential Firings
- UPDATED: What’s Next for the Department of Labor? The Confirmation of Lori Chávez-DeRemer
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Where Things Stand in Response to Actions Taken by President Trump
- Recent Executive Orders’ Impact on the EEOC
- NLRB Acting General Counsel Rescinds Numerous Predecessor’s Memoranda
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements
- U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case