Supreme Court Review in Labor and Employment
In their Labor Relations column, John P. Furfaro and Risa M. Salins discuss rulings from the 2014-2015 term of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to an employer's fiduciary duty to monitor plan investments, judicial review of the EEOC's efforts at conciliation prior to litigation, compensation for time spent waiting to undergo security screenings, and whether an administrative agency's changes to its interpretive rules are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking.
June 05, 2015 at 01:38 AM
11 minute read
This is the first of two columns discussing U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2014-2015 term in the area of labor and employment law of significance for employers. This month we review rulings pertaining to an employer's fiduciary duty to monitor plan investments, judicial review of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's efforts at conciliation prior to litigation, compensation for time spent waiting to undergo security screenings, and whether an administrative agency's changes to its interpretive rules are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Fiduciary Duty
In Tibble v. Edison International, 135 SCt 1823 (2015), the Supreme Court unanimously held on May 18, 2015, that the six-year statute of limitations for fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not bar a claim brought more than six years after a plan investment was selected, if the claim alleges the fiduciary failed to prudently monitor the investment within the limitations period. Although the court explicitly declined to define the parameters of the duty to monitor plan investments, this ruling will make it easier for plan participants to challenge plan fiduciaries' retention of investment options within 401(k) plans.
ERISA imposes on plan fiduciaries a duty of prudence that requires a fiduciary to “discharge his duties with respect to a plan… with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence” that a prudent person would use under similar circumstances. 29 USC §1104(a)(1)(B). Tibble involved beneficiaries of the Edison International 401(k) Savings Plan who brought suit against Edison International and other plan officials in 2007, seeking to recover damages from losses to the plan. The beneficiaries claimed defendants acted imprudently when investing in retail-class mutual funds when materially identical lower priced institutional-class funds were available.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found plaintiffs' concerns raised in 2007 over investments made in 1999 untimely under the statutory bar contained in Section 1113 of ERISA. Section 1113 states in relevant part that a breach of fiduciary duty complaint is timely if filed no more than six years after the date of the last action by the fiduciary which constituted a part of the breach or violation. 29 USC §1113. The Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiffs' argument that their claims remained timely because defendants committed a continuing breach of fiduciary duty for so long as the challenged investments remained as options within the plan. The Ninth Circuit reasoned plaintiffs had not successfully shown “a change in circumstances that might trigger an obligation to review and to change investments within the 6-year statutory period.”
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rippling Effect' of Pay-Transparency Laws to Test Legal Departments
Black Former In-House Lawyer Sues NYC Nonprofit, Alleging Pattern of Pay Inequities
NY Judge Rules on Former In-House Attorney's Claims Against Goldman Sachs
Con Edison Denies Former In-House Attorney's Gender, Age Discrimination Claims
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250