
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a withdrawal liability case involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Furthermore, two more petitions about ERISA matters are pending before the high court.
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Withdrawal Liability Case
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in an ERISA case with limited scope but high significance. The issues concern the types of actuarial assumptions unions may use when calculating an employer’s withdrawal liability from a multiemployer fund. In M&K Employee Solutions LLC et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, Case Number 23-1209, a group of employers withdrawing from an International Association of Machinists pension fund is appealing a February 2024 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court. That ruling upheld a lower federal court’s decision that ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act allow retroactive assumptions in the calculation of withdrawal liability.
The employers argue that withdrawal liability calculations cannot involve changes to actuarial assumptions after the measurement date or a date related to the timing of the employer’s withdrawal. By statute, the last day of the plan year before the year of withdrawal determines the measurement date. According to employers, a change in actuarial assumptions after the end of a year may have a significant effect on withdrawal liability.
Home Depot Workers Challenge Eleventh Circuit Dismissal of 401(k) Plan Suit
In Jaime H. Pizarro et al. v. The Home Depot Inc. et al., Case Number 24-620, a class of Home Depot workers is appealing the dismissal of their suit accusing the home improvement retailer of charging excessive fees and providing poor investment choices in their 401(k) plan. In August 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that the workers had failed to prove sufficient evidence of loss causation. The Eleventh Circuit adopted the reasoning of several other appellate circuits in that ERISA does not provide for a shifting of the burden of proof on loss causation to the defendant. The U.S. Solicitor General also filed a brief in support of the high court taking up the case.
Parker-Hannifin Appeals Adverse Employee 401(k) Plan Ruling
Employees have charged Ohio-based Parker-Hannifin Corp. with offering low-performing funds in its 401(K) plan which serves about 58,000 workers. After a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit revived the workers’ claims in November 2024, Parker-Hannifin sought review of the decision to clarify the standards for ERISA fiduciary breach litigation.
In Parker-Hannifin Corp. et al. v. Michael D. Johnson et al., Case Number 24-1030, the workers originally filed suit against their employer in 2021, claiming breach of its fiduciary duties under ERISA. Their claims focused on the employer’s inclusion of expensive and poorly-performing target-date funds (TDFs) in the employee 401(k) plan. According to the Sixth Circuit, the workers weren’t required to provide a higher-performing benchmark to prove a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. Still, the panel also concluded that the fund the workers provided, compared to the targeted TDFs, was a more prudent investment option.
Once again, the solicitor general and the U.S. Department of Labor have filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to consider the case. The federal government argues that workers should back up their claims with benchmark data showing better performance from comparable investment funds. If successful, the government’s position would heighten the pleading standard for workers in this type of ERISA litigation.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
Latest posts by Hall Benefits Law, LLC (see all)
- ERISA Cases Seeking U.S. Supreme Court Review in 2026 - March 19, 2026
