Search the News Archive

Minnesota District Court Applies De Novo Review, Finds SPD Discretionary Language Ineffectual Where Plan Document Failed to Grant Discretion (PDF)

"If the Life Policy was ambiguous as to whether it conferred discretion to [the defendant Life Insurance Co. of North America (LINA)], this SPD language may have resolved the ambiguity in LINA's favor. Because the Life Policy is not ambiguous, however, the SPD cannot by itself confer discretion to LINA at beneficiaries' expense." [Bowers v. Life Ins. Co. of North America (LINA), No. 13-891 (D. Minn. May 14, 2014)]

Standing Issues Cripple PBM Case in the District of Minnesota

"The court agreed with plaintiffs that the type of individual harm they alleged could, under certain circumstances, constitute injury-in-fact for standing purposes.... The court nevertheless concluded that the actual facts plaintiffs alleged could not satisfy Article III's standing requirements because their alleged harm was speculative and ultimately not redressable.... The court's fundamental point was this: even if plaintiffs prevailed in this case and received all the relief they requested, Wells Fargo could still increase their contribution amounts under the terms of the plan without violating ERISA." [Navarro v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 24-3043 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2025)]

Court Rules Duluth, Minnesota, Free to Change City Employee Retiree Benefits

Excerpt: A state court has sided with the City of Duluth in a long-standing dispute over the generous health benefits provided to hundreds of retired city workers. The court ruled the city is free to change the retiree's benefits to match those of current workers. State District Judge Kenneth Sandvik said Duluth can change the terms for retired workers' health care and that the city is not bound by whatever terms were in effect the day a particular worker retired. The ruling will directly affect what the city pays each year to cover retirees and members of their families, and it will make a huge difference in the city's long-running budget troubles.

Court Agrees Minnesota Department of Corrections Early Retirement Incentive Plan Violates ADEA

Under the ERIP, an employee who retired at age 55 would get employer contributions for health and dental insurance until age 65, but an employee who retired after age 55 would not. The appellate court agreed with a district court ruling that the early retirement incentives are 'facially discriminatory,' and as such violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and that an early retirement incentive plan cannot condition its benefits based solely on age.

District Court: ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Equitable Estoppel Claims Against Insurer Survive Despite Policy Termination

"Minnesota Life later denied the beneficiaries' claim for the group policy benefit, asserting that DiNicola had lost eligibility when she resigned and that the previous confirmations of coverage were clerical errors.... The court found that Minnesota Life acted as a fiduciary when it repeatedly communicated to DiNicola that her group policy coverage remained intact.... Similarly, the court found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged an equitable estoppel claim under ERISA." [Fleming v. Minnesota Life Insurance Co.., No. 23-2558 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2025)]

DOL Notifies District Court of Intent to Extend Transition Period and Delay Applicability Dates for Fiduciary Rule and PTEs (PDF)

"[DOL hereby notifies] the Court that on August 9, 2017, the Department submitted to [OMB] proposed amendments to three exemptions, entitled: Extension of Transition Period and Delay of Applicability Dates From January 1, 2018, to July 1, 2019; Best Interest Contract Exemption (PTE 2016-01); Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02); Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents an d Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters (PTE 84-24). Notification of the submission becomes publicly available the morning after submission."

Text of District Court Opinion Dismissing Participant Claims of Breach of ERISA Duty of Loyalty in Wells Fargo Stock Drop Claim (PDF)

"[P]laintiffs do not claim that defendants misled them about 'plan- and benefit- specific information,' such as the terms of Wells Fargo's 401(k) plan.... Instead, plaintiffs claim that defendants failed to disclose inside corporate information 'that might affect the value of the corporation's stock' -- information that would be of interest to every member of the investing public.... [To] the extent that plaintiffs' loyalty claim relies solely on defendants' nondisclosure of inside information about Wells Fargo's present and future financial condition, plaintiffs' loyalty claim must be dismissed." [In re: Wells Fargo ERISA 401(k) Litigation, No. 16-3405 (D. Minn. July 19, 2018)]

District Court Dismisses Class Action Challenge to UnitedHealth PBM Payments (PDF)

36 pages. "Plaintiffs allege ... that they were entitled to pay less than they were charged as copayments or coinsurance under the terms of their plans because their plans entitled Plaintiffs to receive the benefit of the discounted rate ... Plaintiffs allege that they purchased certain drugs on numerous occasions and were overcharged due to OptumRx's contribution calculations, resulting in spreads and clawbacks.... [The plans] do not entitle those ERISA Plaintiffs to the discounted rate as a 'lesser of' payment option when filling prescription drugs at retail network pharmacies. Because those ERISA Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants violated the terms of their Plans other than by not allowing them to pay lesser, discounted rates, such Plaintiffs fail to state claims for benefits under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B)." [In re UnitedHealth Group PBM Litigation, No. 16-3352 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2017)]

Text of Federal District Court Opinion Granting Award of Attorney's Fees Because of Extended Delays in Approval of Disability Benefits (PDF)

"LINA could have exercised greater care in reviewing the record and applying the literal terms of its Policy to its review of Nozal's claim.... LINA offered to pay Nozal's attorney's fees and costs, but offered her nothing in return for the significant delay and apparent violation of the ERISA plan's administrative review process. Nozal's attorney will not be faulted for rejecting such an offer.... LINA sought an extension to answer the Complaint and ostensibly to continue settlement negotiations, which Nozal granted. However, instead of continuing to negotiate, LINA filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the entire Complaint and largely ignored the delay in the appeals process." [Nozal v. Allina Health Systems Long-Term Disability Benefit Plan; and Life Insurance Company of North America [LINA], No. 13-2270 (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 2014)]

Text of District Court Opinion: ERISA Does Not Apply to Benefit Claims by Foreign Nationals Working Outside U.S. (PDF)

"The foreign plan exemption is only one of five provisions that state when a plan will be exempted under ERISA ... It is mere speculation to conclude that this exemption means that foreign nationals working in a foreign country are within the scope of ERISA.... Without an affirmative intention of Congress that clearly expresses that ERISA applies extraterritorially, the Court must therefore presume that ERISA 'is primarily concerned with domestic conditions,' and Plaintiffs' motion to remand will be granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction." [In re Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., Nos. 19-331, 19-332, 19-333, 19-334, 19-335, 19-336, 19-338, 19-339, 19-340, 19-341, 19-342, 19-343 (E.D. Penn. Jun. 24, 2019)]

Text of DOL Statement on Association Health Plans After U.S. District Court Ruling in State of New York v. DOL

"The Department disagrees with the district court's ruling and on April 26, 2019 the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal. The policy reflected in this Statement will remain in effect for existing AHPs until their current plan year or contract term expires.... Employers participating in insured AHPs can generally maintain that coverage through the end of the plan year or, if later, the contract term. This means their employees generally can keep their coverage in force. [HHS] has advised the Department that employer members of an insured AHP have an independent right under the guaranteed renewability provision of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to continue insurance coverage (including maintaining all out-of-pocket accumulators for employees and their families) through the end of the applicable plan year, unless an exception applies.... [T]he Department will work with affected parties, HHS, and the States to mitigate any disruptions or hardships that result from confusion regarding the status of the AHP rule and legal compliance requirements. The focus of the Department's efforts will be on ensuring that participants and beneficiaries get their health benefits claims paid as promised, and on reducing the risk of adverse consequences to affected employer associations, and their employer members, that relied in good faith on the rule."

U.S. District Court Dismisses Two Stock-Drop Cases Against IBM

"A federal district court judge in New York dismissed two lawsuits Wednesday against International Business Machines Corp. that alleged the company failed to adequately disclose information and/or take appropriate action to protect shareholders regarding the disposal of a troubled business unit.... [One] case was dismissed, the judge wrote, because plaintiffs only offered 'a rote recitation of proposed remedies' without providing necessary facts to support their complaints. The [second] case was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove IBM's intent to keep information hidden. 'It is far more plausible the defendants were not deceitful but mistaken,' he wrote."

Text of CMS Memo: Implications of the Decision by U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on the Risk Adjustment and Related Programs (PDF)

"CMS will not collect or pay the specified amounts [for the 2017 benefit year] at this time. CMS will inform stakeholders of any update to the status of collections or payments at an appropriate future date.... CMS will not collect or pay any specified amounts remaining for the 2014-2016 benefit years at this time.... CMS will collect 2017 benefit year risk adjustment user fees in the August 2018 payment cycle ... Issuers must continue archiving and maintaining 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 EDGE data consistent with normal operations.... CMS will cease issuing any further discrepancy resolution decisions at this time." [Unnumbered document, July 12, 2018]

U.S. District Court Judge Agrees to Monitor Jacksonville Pension Reform Deal

"U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard ... [will] oversee a recently enacted pension reform deal between the [city of Jacksonville, FL] and the Police and Fire Pension Fund. The lengthy pension agreement includes requirements for the city to make extra payments totaling $350 million over 13 years to the pension fund, above and beyond the minimum amounts that would be required by law."

U.S. District Court Says Cash Balance Plan ADEA Claim Not Time Barred Under Lilly Ledbetter Act (PDF)

2 pages. Excerpt: In Tomlinson v. El Paso Corporation, a federal court in Colorado applied the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to allow an age discrimination claim involving a cash balance plan conversion to proceed, reversing its prior dismissal of the lawsuit. The case involves a company that converted its traditional defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance plan in 1997 with a wearaway provision. Although the court initially dismissed the case for not being timely filed, it found that the subsequently enacted Ledbetter Act required it to reconsider this decision. While this is one court's ruling and is limited to Colorado, it demonstrates the potential reach of the Ledbetter Act beyond payroll practices to pension-related claims.

District Court Decides Health Plan's Exclusion of Gender Affirming Care Violates Title VII and U.S. Constitution

"The trial court found that the plan's exclusion discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and because of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court declined to rule on claims alleged under [ACA] Section 1557, pending the issuance of proposed regulations[.]" [Kadel v. Folwell, No. 19-0272 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 10, 2022)]

Minnesota Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Minneapolis Sick and Safe Ordinance

"The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time Ordinance, ruling state law does not preempt the Ordinance, and it can apply to employers who are located outside of the City.... Effective July 1, 2017, the Ordinance required employers to provide a certain minimum level of paid sick leave to all employees who work at least 80 hours a year in the City." [Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis, No. A18-0771 (Minn. Jun. 10, 2020)]

Minnesota Court of Appeals Lifts Injunction That Limited Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time Ordinance to Employers Within City

"Although an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court may be pursued by the chamber within the next 30 days, the Minneapolis safe and sick time ordinance now may be applied to any employee who works at least 80 hours in a year within the city, regardless of whether the employer has a physical presence there."

Minnesota Court Upholds Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance for Employees Working in Minneapolis

"Although Minnesota has a state statute addressing sick leave, the Court of Appeals held that the state law does not preempt the Ordinance because the Ordinance does not directly conflict with the state law and does not regulate a matter solely of state concern.... The Court of Appeals also held that the Ordinance does not have an improper extraterritorial impact because the Ordinance was amended to apply only to employees only when working within the geographic boundaries of Minneapolis." [Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis, No. A18-0771 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019)]

U.S. District Court Rules in Favor of Airline Flight Crew Employees on Paid Sick Leave Challenge

"On October 11, 2019, a federal judge ... ruled that Washington state's paid sick leave law does not violate the Constitution or federal preemption law, thereby guaranteeing sick leave benefits for airline flight crew employees based in Washington.... This is one of several recent lawsuits filed by airlines seeking an exemption from state and local sick leave laws. Two other suits challenging sick leave laws are currently pending in Massachusetts and New York. Presently, eleven states, the District of Columbia, and 22 localities have enacted paid sick leave laws." [Air Transport Assoc. of America v. Washington Dept. of Labor & Indus., No. 18-5092 (W.D. Wa. Oct. 11, 2019)]