Amicus Briefs under ERISA | U.S. Department of Labor

Additional amicus briefs.

Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
11/10/2008
Brief for the Secretary of Labor as amicus curia supporting appellee's petition for hearing en banc

Johnson v. Couturier
09/24/2008
Amicus, in support of motion for preliminary injunction

Chao v. Meixner
07/11/2008
DOL argued that the fiduciaries of a health benefit plan are not entitled to a jury trial in DOL's lawsuit under ERISA section 502(a)(2) in which DOL seeks to recover the plan's monetary losses caused by the defendants' alleged fiduciary misconduct because the remedy sought is equitable in nature

Sowers v. FreightCar America
06/06/2008
DOL argued that the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction reinstating a class of participants to their employment at a FreightCar plan grants equitable relief within the meaning of ERISA section 502(a)(3)

Chao v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc.
05/12/2008
Memorandum in further support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

McLemore v. Regions Bank
05/05/2008
DOL argued that: (1) an ERISA fiduciary who is also the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring an ERISA action and; (2) the defense of in pari delicto cannot be asserted against an ERISA successor trustee

No. 07-841 Amschwand v. Spherion
05/2008
Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

No. 07-636 Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings
05/2008
Amicus, in support of neither party

Hecker v. Deere
04/02/2008
DOL argued that: (1) ERISA section 404(c) does not provide a defense to plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants imprudently and disloyally selected investment choices with excessive fees; (2) fiduciaries' duties to disclose material information can arise from their core statutory duties of prudence and loyalty, not just from specific reporting and disclosure requirements; and (3) the district court erred in holding that defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the selection of funds based solely on the plan documents without regard to the defendants' actions

Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
03/27/2008
DOL argued that the employer spending requirements in San Francisco's Health Care Security Ordinance have a prohibited connection with ERISA plans and are preempted because: (1) they mandate employee benefit structures or their administration because employers can comply with the law's requirements only be establishing or maintaining ERISA plans; and (2) the spending requirements interfere with uniform plan administration

No. 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn
03/21/2008
Amicus, supporting respondent

Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
02/05/2008
DOL argued that the district court improperly denied class certification where (1) the reasons for denial were unknown, and (2) the district court failed to provide any analysis

Chao v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc.
02/03/2008
Memorandum in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

No. 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn
12/21/2007
Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Lively v. Dynegy
10/10/2007
DOL argued that: (1) Plaintiffs' claim alleging that the Defendants' imprudence with regard to the company stock fund caused plan losses is a derivative claim on behalf of the plan under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2); (2) given the nature of a section 502(a)(2) claim, purported intra-class conflicts do not defeat a finding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) that the prerequisites of a class action have been met; and (3) ERISA section 404(c) does not provide a defense to Plaintiffs' allegations that the fiduciaries imprudently maintained the company stock fund

Evans v. Akers
08/08/2007
DOL argued that a former employee who has received a distribution of benefits from his defined contribution pension plan has standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred prior to distribution

No. 06-856 LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg and Assoc., Inc.
08/06/2007
Amicus, supporting petitioner

No. 06-856 LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg and Assoc., Inc.
05/18/2007
Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Pfahler v. National Latex Products Co.
03/21/2007
DOL argued that: (1) the fiduciaries of a self-insured health plan had a duty to enforce the employer's obligation to contribute sufficient funds to a claims account to pay health claims; (2) the fiduciaries diverted participant contributions to pay the employer's general creditors and failed to enforce ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a); and (3) the participants may recover an amount equal to their unpaid health claims under ERISA section 502(a)(3) from the fiduciaries who misrepresented that the claims would be paid

Tullis v. UMB Bank
03/06/2007
DOL argued that participants in a defined contribution plan may sue under ERISA section 502(a)(2) for losses to their defined contribution plan caused by fiduciary breaches, notwithstanding that those losses will be allocated only to their individual accounts

Chao v. Community Trust Co.
02/05/2007
Secretary's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc

Harzewski v. Guidant Corp.
12/28/2006
DOL argued that a former employee who has received a benefit distribution from a pension has standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred prior to the distribution

Rogers v. Baxter International, Inc.
12/08/2006
DOL argued that ERISA section 502(a)(2) confers standing on persons seeking monetary relief for a defined contribution plan due to an alleged breach of fiduciary duty even though the relief will be allocated only to a subset of participants in the plan

Calpine Corporation
11/16/2006
DOL argued that fiduciaries of a defined contribution pension plan were not entitled to a presumption that they were prudent when they continued to purchase employer stock after they became aware of accounting irregularities concerning the company

Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Felder
11/06/2006
The Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act is preempted because it "relates to" employee benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA section 514(a), by mandating that employers pay a certain level of health care benefits to their employees or pay a penalty to the State

Howell v. Motorola, Inc.
11/01/2006
DOL argued that a former participant of a 401(k) plan, who had received a distribution of benefits, had standing to sue the fiduciaries under ERISA section 502(a)(2) and the participant had a "colorable claim for benefits" because the fiduciary breaches allegedly occurred while he was actively enrolled in the plan

Bridges v. American Electric Power Co.
10/19/2006
DOL argued that a former participant, who received a distribution of his 401(k) plan account had standing to sue based on his "colorable claim for benefits."

Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc.
09/01/2006
DOL argued that an employee who has taken his distribution from a defined contribution plan has a "colorable claim for benefits" and, therefore, standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred while he was in the plan because any losses recovered will increase his vested benefits

Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc.
08/16/2006
DOL argued that the district court erred when it held that fiduciaries of 401(k) plans have no discretion or fiduciary duty with regard to employer stock funds because relevant plan documents require that they offer the employer stock fund and that an employer match be made in company stock

Dickerson v. Feldman
07/17/2006
DOL argued that a participant who received a distribution from a defined contribution plan has standing to sue under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2) to recover losses to the plan resulting from fiduciary breaches that allegedly occurred while he was in the plan

Woods v. Southern Co.
07/14/2006
DOL argued that ERISA does not require plaintiff to exhaust internal plan review procedures before bringing suit under sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) for losses to a plan caused by fiduciary breaches; and exhaustion is not required when a plan provides no procedures for review of fiduciary breach claims, the reviewing fiduciary would have been powerless to provide the loss remedy sought by plaintiffs, and exhaustion of the review procedure provided by the plan would have been futile

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc.
07/12/2006
DOL argued that the appellate panel erred when it held that a plan participant seeking losses attributable to his 401(k) plan account resulting from a fiduciary's failure to follow his investment instruction may not sue for losses to the plan. The participant alleged that there were fewer assets in the plan as a result of the fiduciary breach and, therefore, he was authorized to sue under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2) which provide for recovery of "any losses" to the plan

Holtzscher v. Dynegy Inc.
06/28/2006
DOL argued that former participants of a defined contribution pension plan who have received their lump sum payments have standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that caused losses to the plans before termination; and former participants have colorable claims for benefits because losses recovered by the plans will result in larger benefit payments to them

Vaughn v. Bay Environmental Management Inc.
06/07/2006
DOL argued that plaintiffs, who claim that fiduciary breaches caused a diminution in the amount of benefits they were paid when the defendant terminated the defined contribution plans in which they participated, have standing to bring their suit. Plaintiffs have a colorable claim that alleged fiduciary breaches have affected their plan benefits and thus meet the statutory standing criteria. Termination of the plans does not destroy standing

Green v. ExxonMobil Corp.
05/25/2006
DOL argued (1) that ERISA section 502(a)(3) authorized an award of make-whole monetary relief for a beneficiary against a breaching fiduciary and (2) that a beneficiary may bring a lawsuit simultaneously alleging that he is entitled to make-whole monetary relief for fiduciary breaches resulting in a denial of the benefits

No. 05-260 Sereboff v Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
02/2006
Amicus, supporting respondent

Gerosa v. Savasta
11/01/2002
The district court for the Southern District of New York held that ERISA preempts a state law claim for malpractice brought by plan trustees against actuaries to the plan, but provides a federal common law claim for damages against such entities. DOL argued that the court erred on both points

Stern v. IBM
10/15/2002
The district court issued an order holding that IBM's sick leave program constituted an ERISA plan, so that Stern's claim for breach of contract actually stated a claim for ERISA benefits and therefore was properly removed to federal court. DOL argued that under the Secretary's "payroll practices" regulation, the sick leave program is not an ERISA plan

Sardagna v. Glaziers Pension Trust
10/15/2002
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant

Mario v. P&C Food Markets
09/10/2002
DOL argued that a summary plan description need not contain information concerning the discretion afforded the plan administrator to interpret plan terms

Tittle v. Enron Part 1
08/30/2002
DOL argued that: (1) The duty to protect retirement plans falls not only on the trustees who directly oversee the plans, but also on top executives and officials who are responsible for appointing the fiduciaries and monitoring their performance; (2) If any of these fiduciaries were aware or should have been aware that the employees were misinformed about the stability of Enron stock, they had a duty to take appropriate action to protect their retirement investments; (3) This could include investigating allegations of accounting fraud, disclosing the true facts to plan participants, the investing public and/or other fiduciaries, and stopping further investment in employer stock; (4) Disclosing information about accounting irregularities to the public, or refusing to purchase more Enron stock and elimination it as an investment option, is fully consistent with the securities laws, which forbid buying or selling stock based on "inside information" that the general public does not have; (5) That fiduciaries have an obligation to ensure that investments in employer securities, whether in a 401(k) plan or an ESOP, are prudent, notwithstanding plan provisions that contemplate or favor such investments; (6) That directed trustees cannot follow directions that they know, or because of "red flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise violate ERISA; (7) That participants may recover monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached their duties with regard to the cash balance plan; and (8) -+That, even if it is a non-fiduciary, Arthur Anderson may be liable for equitable relief if it knowingly participated in the fiduciary breaches of others

Harley v. 3M Rehearing
05/22/2002
DOL filed a brief in support of en banc and panel rehearing making the same arguments as in the brief above

Keen v. Weaver
02/13/2002
DOL argued that ERISA and the pension plan documents determine the plaintiff's entitlement to benefits, and that the court should not develop a federal common law that would supplant the written designation rule

Ostler v. Oce-USA Inc.
02/08/2002
DOL argued that equitable relief within the meaning of Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA includes the recovery from a fiduciary of any direct monetary loss caused by the fiduciary's breach of its obligations