Search the News Archive

Text: Eastern District Court Ruling in AARP v. EEOC, Filed 09/27/2005 (PDF)

41 pages. Excerpt: In this suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (the 'APA'), the AARP challenges a regulation proposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the 'EEOC'). The proposed regulation would exempt certain employer practices from the AgeDiscrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the 'ADEA'), as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 101-433 (1990) (the 'OWBPA').

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)]

The Erie Saga Continues: District Court to Reconsider Judgment

Excerpt: At the request of the court, EEOC and AARP filed briefs respectively supporting and opposing the EEOC's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Rule 60(b) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as requested by U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody in AARP v. EEOC. The Department of Justice, on behalf of the EEOC, filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment on June 30, 2005. AARP filed its Motion in Opposition along with a supporting brief on July 14, 2005.

Text of Federal District Court Opinion: Limited Discovery Appropriate in ERISA Matter Evidencing Conflict of Interest and Procedural Irregularity (PDF)

"Hartford both administers and funds the plan. Under [Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008)], such dual obligations may create a structural conflict of interest. Furthermore, without a convincing explanation, the altered claim form suggests a procedural irregularity. Although plausible, Hartford's explanation regarding the alteration is speculative ... [T]he potential structural conflict of interest coupled with the procedural irregularity of the altered form warrant further discovery. However, even where discovery regarding an alleged conflict of interest is appropriate, courts generally place narrow restrictions on the scope of discovery permitted. Plaintiff's requests are expansive and must be narrowed to target information actually relevant to the alleged conflicts." [Greene v. Hartford, No. 13-6033 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 6, 2015)]

Text of District Court Order Awarding Death Benefit to Same-Sex Spouse of Profit-Sharing Plan Participant (PDF)

"Post-Windsor, where a state recognizes a party as a 'Surviving Spouse,' the federal government must do the same with respect to ERISA benefits -- at least pursuant to the express language of the ERISA-qualified Plan at issue here. There can be no doubt that Illinois, the couple's place of domicile, would consider Ms. Tobits [to be] Ms. Farley's 'surviving Spouse' -- indeed it already has made that specific finding under state law. Windsor makes clear that where a state has recognized a marriage as valid, the United States Constitution requires that the federal laws and regulations of this country acknowledge that marriage. In light of that, this Court finds that Ms. Tobits is Ms. Farley's 'Spouse' pursuant to the terms of the Plan." [Cozen O'Connor v. Tobits et al., No. 2:11-cv-00045-CDJ (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2013)]

Court Allows Comcast Company Stock Suit to Move Forward

Excerpt: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has moved forward several fiduciary breach claims against Comcast Corporation for its handling of company stock retirement plan investments. The court rejected Comcast's assertion that a previous ruling in a case against Avaya Inc. extended protection for fiduciaries who decided to offer Comcast stock as an investment option because the plan is an eligible individual account plan (EIAP). In its opinion, the court pointed out that the Avaya plan mandated that company stock be offered as an investment option ..., entitling Avaya fiduciaries to a presumption that it was prudent to offer company stock, whereas the Comcast plan only said company stock 'may' be offered to participants.

Court Finds No ERISA Violation in Wachovia Fund Merger

Excerpt: Wachovia Bank did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it sent a form letter to investors notifying them of a fund's merger with another fund, a court ruled. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the claims brought by Olivet Boys' & Girls' Club of Reading and Berks County. The court ruled that Wachovia cannot be a fiduciary to the club's Money Purchase Pension Plan under ERISA because it did not render investment advice. The court pointed out that even the club described Wachovia's actions with respect to the new fund as marketing.

Is 4 Greater than 9? ADEA and the EEOC and Retiree Health Plans

Excerpt: The AARP, the EEOC and interested retirees are waiting to hear from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania whether four is greater than nine or whether nine is greater than four. The district court previously enjoined the EEOC from publishing regulations that would explicitly permit employers to coordinate retiree health care benefits with Medicare eligibility. Those regulations were designed to overturn the Third Circuit's ruling in the Erie County case[.]

401(k) Custodial Contracts Must Be Disclosed, Judge Says

"Considering an issue of first impression, Judge James Knoll Gardner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that a custodial agreement between a 401(k) plan and Nationwide Trust Co. qualified as a formal document under which the plan was established and operated. Although noting it was a 'close question,' Gardner said the custodial agreement was therefore subject to the statutory disclosure requirements of [ERISA]." [Askew v. R.L. Reppert, Inc., No. 11-cv-04003 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 5, 2016)]