Search the News Archive

Text of Seventh Circuit Decision Affirming District Court Grant of FMLA Leave for Las Vegas Trip with Terminally Ill Family Member (PDF)

"[P]erhaps what the Park District means to argue is that the real reason Beverly requested leave was in order to take a free pleasure trip, and not in order to care for her mother. Whether that sort of argument is borne out by the record -- which suggests that Sarah arranged the trip with her social worker as part of her end-of-life hospice planning, that Beverly consulted with Sarah's doctor about what would be required on the trip, and that Beverly did in fact provide care in Las Vegas -- is not for us to decide at this stage. However, we note that an employer concerned about the risk that employees will abuse the FMLA's leave provisions may of course require that requests be certified by the family member's health care provider." [Ballard v. Chicago Park District, No. 13-1445 (7th Cir. Jan. 28, 2014)]

Text of Seventh Circuit Opinion: ERISA Anti-Alienation Provision Does Not Protect Benefits Once Paid (PDF)

"Five courts of appeals have agreed with the Tenth Circuit that Section 206(d)(1) does not prevent the attachment or garnishment of funds after a pension plan has paid them to retirees.... One has held that Section 206(d)(1) shields pensions from creditors even after distribution. United States v. Smith, 47 F.3d 681 (4th Cir. 1995). We agree with the majority -- and because we are the seventh court of appeals to reach this conclusion we can be brief." [NLRB v. HH3 Trucking Inc., Nos. 05-1362, 05-4075 (7th Cir. June 13, 2014)]

Circuit Courts of Appeal Uphold Dismissal of 401(k) Fee Challenges Post-Hughes

"Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a complaint challenging a 401(k) plan's purportedly excessive recordkeeping, investment management and investment advisor fees under [ERISA]. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has also upheld the dismissal of complaints challenging 401(k) fees post-Hughes. These decisions have highlighted that plaintiffs challenging recordkeeping fees must allege how such fees were excessive in comparison to the services rendered."

Text of Seventh Circuit Case Allowing ERISA Claim for Benefits Against Wisconsin Health Insurers Over Chiropractic Coverage (PDF)

The three-judge panel determined that ERISA did not preclude the bringing of suit under ERISA section 1132(a)(1)(B) by several employer-sponsored health plan participants directly against six health insurance companies rather than the employers, when the plans are "insurance-based" and the insurance companies "decided all eligibility questions and owes the benefits." The participant claimed the insurance policies illegally applied co-payment requirements to chiropractic care under Wisconsin law. The court examined the Wisconsin law and found the policies were in conformance, however, so the district court's denial of the claim was affirmed. A claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA was rejected as being inapplicable to the insurance companies. [Larson v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, et al., No. 12-1256 (7th Cir. July 26, 2013)]

Text of Seventh Circuit Opinion: ESOP Participants Not Required to Plead Inadequate Consideration in Claim of Prohibited Transaction (PDF)

18 pages. "The complaint alleges a purchase of employer stock by the Plan and a loan by the employer to the Plan, both of which are indisputably prohibited transactions ... GreatBanc [as Plan Trustee] can prevail only if it can take advantage of one of [ERISA] section 408's exemptions. It never raised any such affirmative defense, however; it took the position instead that the plaintiffs have the burden of pleading facts that would negate the applicability of section 408's exemptions and that they failed to do so.... [This Court finds that] section 408 exemptions are affirmative defenses for pleading purposes, and so the plaintiff has no duty to negate any or all of them." [Allen v. GreatBanc Trust Co., No. 15-3569 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016)]

Text of Seventh Circuit Opinion: Injunction Again Denied to Notre Dame in Contraceptive Mandate Case (PDF)

50 pages. "[B]ased on the sparse record before us, there is a strong argument that given the government's legitimate interest in the provision of contraceptive coverage to women without cost to them, notice to the government would strike the proper balance between legitimate governmental and sincere religious interests. That was the accommodation sought and received by Wheaton College... All of Notre Dame's suggested alternatives would impose significant financial, administrative, and logistical obstacles by requiring women to sign up for separate coverage either with a government agency or with another private insurer. Such obstacles were considered by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby in support of the same accommodation that Notre Dame refuses to accept.... The burden of establishing an entitlement to a preliminary injunction was of course on the university, not on the government. The burden has not been carried." [Notre Dame v. Burwell, No. 13-3853 (7th Cir. May 19, 2015)]

Text of Seventh Circuit Opinion: Delegation of Investment Decisions to Outside Fiduciary Shields Boeing from Fiduciary Liability in Stock-Drop Case (PDF)

30 pages. "The central question here is whether the delegation of those investment responsibilities protects the company and company insiders from liability for the plan's continued offering of Boeing stock as an investment option for employees before and during a time when the value of Boeing stock dropped significantly.... We agree with the district court that the delegation ... means that neither Boeing nor the other defendants acted in an ERISA fiduciary capacity in connection with the continued investments in Boeing stock." [Burke v. The Boeing Company, No. 20-3389 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022)]

Text of Seventh Circuit Opinion Finding No Contractual Obligation for Hospital to Reimburse Health Plan Due to Plan's Error (PDF)

"The plan took almost eleven months to determine that the child of its insured was not a plan beneficiary. It's one thing for a seller to refund money or take other reparative measures because of a mistake it's made, and another to do so because the buyer has made a mistake.... the fact that the hospital may on occasion have made refunds in circumstances similar or even identical to this case neither establishes a contractual obligation on the hospital's part to make such refunds, nor could have lulled the Kolbe plan into thinking it took no risk in conducting a dilatory investigation of the eligibility of a child with a very serious medical condition bound to cost a great deal to treat." [Kolbe & Kolbe Health and Welfare Ben. Plan v. Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc., Nos. 12-3837 & 12-3929 (7th Cir. 2014)]

Seventh Circuit Ruling Against Plaintiffs in Deere ERISA 'Excessive Fees' Case

Excerpt: On February 12, 2009, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims in Hecker v. Deere & Company. The ruling is the first significant appellate decision concerning the ERISA excessive fees litigation that has recently plagued large companies. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Hecker rejects several recently popular plaintiffs' ERISA theories regarding improper 'revenue sharing' and 'excessive fees.'

Seventh Circuit: EEOC Claims for Retirement Benefits Dismissed Because Age Discrimination Claims Untimely

"An individual must have filed timely charges of discrimination with the EEOC in order to file a claim of discrimination himself. See 29 U.S.C. sec. 626(d). Despite this filing requirement, the EEOC asks us to hold that it may bring suit for monetary damages even when none of the individuals on whose behalf it sues have filed timely charges." [EEOC v. North Gibson School Corp., No. 00-3117 (7th Cir. Sep. 11, 2001)]