In August 2018, ERIC brought a lawsuit seeking to invalidate, based on preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Seattle’s ordinance and implementing rules that require the payment of additional compensation to hotel employees unless the hotel employer provides a specified level of health insurance benefits at a low contribution level for the employee… More

ERIC filed a motion for summary judgment in our lawsuit against the City of Seattle. In the motion ERIC argues that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the federal law that enables employers to administer health and retirement benefits uniformly across the country, preempts Part 3 of the Seattle Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative… More

ERIC today filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the City of Seattle for obstructing the federal law that enables large employers to administer health and retirement benefits uniformly across the country. ERIC is requesting an injunction and a declaration from the court that federal law supersedes and preempts the health coverage and payment mandates in Part 3 of the Seattle Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative - SMC 14.25; ERIC hopes to work with the City and negotiate a temporary nonenforcement agreement, at least until a decision in the case is reached… More

ERIC has filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against the Oregon Retirement Savings Board for obstructing federal law. In the complaint, ERIC is requesting an injunction against only the reporting requirement OregonSaves imposes on employers that already provide a retirement plan… More

OregonSaves is the State of Oregon’s state-run retirement program. Signed into law in June 2015, the Oregon Retirement Savings Board was implemented and tasked with creating a defined contribution retirement plan for private-sector employees… More

The Supreme Court recently ruled in support companies and statements in its corporate filings by holding that public companies are not liable for statements of opinions that turn out to be false. … More

The Supreme Court has asked for the solicitor general to weigh in regarding whether it should grant cert to a case that would decide who bears the burden of proving a breach of fiduciary duty caused financial losses to a pension plan. … More

Oral arguments in King v. Burwell were heard on Wednesday, and few pundits have failed to render an opinion. To me, the bottom line is… More

The U.S. Supreme Court on February 24 heard oral arguments in Tibble v. Edison International involving whether a claim that fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by offering higher-cost retail-class mutual funds to participants instead of institution-class mutual funds … More

The U.S. Supreme Court on February 23 declined to rehear a decision from the 8th Circuit Court that basically left standing an action by Windstream Corporation to significantly reduce retiree health benefits … More

Earlier today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of plan reformation in Amara v. Cigna Corp.… More

Amara v. CIGNA Corp. … More

The U.S. Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief to advise the Court whether to accept cert in the case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. … More

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, which involves when retiree health benefits are considered to be vested. … More

The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will not hear the case of Tussey v. ABB, despite encouragement from the Solicitor of Labor to hear the case. The Tussey case involved whether deference should be limited to fiduciaries’ decisions that relate to benefit claims. … More

Today, the judge in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota denied EEOC’s request for a TRO/PI, finding that the Honeywell wellness program inflicted no “irreparable harm”. … More

Yesterday the EEOC filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and an Expedited Preliminary Injunction in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, claiming that Honeywell’s wellness program violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). … More

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a plan document can limit where participants can file suit. In Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan, the participant retired in 2000 and began to receive benefits… More

We wanted to update ERIC members on the latest developments in the Osberg v. Foot Locker case (in which ERIC previously filed an amicus brief on behalf of members with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals). … More

The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that it will hear the case of Tibble v. Edison International, which involves the selection and monitoring of plan investments and the amount of fees related to those investments.… More

The EEOC has double-downed on their rulemaking-through-lawsuit approach to wellness programs by suing Flambeau, Inc., for a similar violation of the ADA. … More

The federal district court in Oklahoma today decided to vacate the IRS regulation under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that permits individuals in states with federal Exchanges to receive subsidized health insurance. … More

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently examined the standard that applies when courts review a fiduciary’s benefit denial. The Court held that courts should consider “all of the relevant circumstances,” rather than upholding an administrator’s decision as long as it was reasonable.… More

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced September 4 that it will rehear the case involving whether tax subsidies are available for both the state-based and federally-run exchanges (Halbig v. Burwell).… More

The Solicitor of Labor recently recommended that the U.S. Supreme Court consider to what extent fiduciaries are required to monitor investments on an ongoing basis in Tibble v. Edison International. In the Tibble case, the participants alleged that the plan fiduciaries improperly included retail-class mutual funds as investment options and violated the plan’s terms by allowing revenue sharing. … More