January 1, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Cornell University workers’ bid to revive a retirement plan lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit will weigh whether a nicotine surcharge dispute belongs in arbitration, and the Second Circuit will hear Yale University defend a win in a fight over retirement plan fees and investments.
Here are five cases benefits lawyers should have on their radar in the new year.
Cornell Workers Push High Court to Reinstate Their Case
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the pleading standards for workers alleging retirement plan mismanagement, after justices in October granted Cornell University workers’ petition for review of a Second Circuit decision that ended their Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit.
Justices have scheduled arguments in the case for Jan. 22 in the appeal from Cornell workers, who challenged a November 2023 Second Circuit panel’s decision to affirm a summary judgment win for the university on claims recordkeeping fees were excessive.
The high court also approved the federal government’s request to argue as amicus on behalf of the university retirement plan participants who petitioned for review in the case. The government filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners earlier in December.
. . .
Michelle Yau, who chairs the employee benefits and ERISA practice at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, said she’s also keeping a close eye on the Cornell case.
Yau said “there’s a lot of confusion” among the circuit courts about what’s required to plead a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA when service providers are involved.
Yau also took note of the narrow question that justices are taking up, which is focused on the pleading standards for Section 406(a)(1)(c) and not other types of prohibited transaction claims involving parties in interest to a plan, such as company insiders, for example.
“I think it’s important to put in context all the stuff that’s not going to be disturbed” by the case, Yau said.
The case is Casey Cunningham et al. v. Cornell University et al., case number 23-1007, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read 5 Cases Benefits Attorneys Should Keep An Eye On In 2025.