AARP Foundation Legal Advocacy Employee Benefits Docket AARP
AARP Foundation - Legal Advocacy: Employee Benefits Docket - AARP ... What We Do
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16426 Decided: 11/1/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage? Case Result: Defendants-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. Case Name: Ely v. Saul
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16427 Decided: 11/1/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage? Case Result: Defendants-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. Case Name: Schmoll v. Saul
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16445 Decided: 11/1/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage? Case Result: Defendants-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. Case Name: Haley v. TIAA
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 21-805 Filed: 10/18/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Can an exploitative loan program used by many employee benefit plans be challenged on a classwide basis? Case Name: Smith v. Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing (Employee Benefits)
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 20-2708 Decided: 9/10/2021 Read AARP (PDF) and (PDF) Case Result: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss. Case Name: Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 19-1401 Read AARP Amicus (PDF) Filed: 9/10/2021 Case Issue: Is including a fund with excessively high fees a breach of fiduciary duty in an employee benefit plan? Case Name: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. California Secure Choice Retirement Sav. Prog.
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-15591 Read AARP (PDF), , and (PDF) Decided: 5/7/2021 Case Result: The Ninth Circuit panel unanimously held that ERISA does not preempt the CalSavers program because the program does not relate to an employee benefit plan, but is a state-established and maintained savings program. Case Name: Rutledge v. Pharmacy Care Management Assn.
Court: U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket: 18-450 Decided: 12/10/2020 Read AARP's (PDF) and (PDF)
Case Result: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ERISA does not preempt Arkansas’ PBM transparency law. Case Issue: Many states have passed laws regulating health care market players to address rising health care costs. Does ERISA, the federal law that protects employee benefits, say that states can't do this because the state laws could potentially affect employee benefit plans in some remote way? Case Name: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litig (In re) Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 18-346 Decided: 12/7/2020 Read AARP's (PDF) Case Result: In a summary, nonprecedential order, the Second Circuit held that Anthem, as an insurance provider, and Express Scripts, as a pharmacy benefit manager, were not acting as fiduciaries under ERISA when they negotiated prescription drug prices, even though the agreements affected an ERISA plan. Case Name: Indep. Insur. Agents and Brokers v. N.Y.
Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division—Third Department Docket: 530047 Read (PDF) Filed: 8/10/2020 Case Issue: Is New York’s Suitability and Best Interest Rule, which requires insurance agents and brokers to act in the best interests of consumers, a valid regulation? Case Name: Hartshorne v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York
Court: New York Supreme Ct., Schenectady County Docket: 2019-1989 Filed: 9/10/19 Motion to Dismiss Decided: 7/15/2020 Watch and Read (PDF), , (PDF), (PDF) D (PDF) and
Case Issue: Did the Defendants, including the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, violate New York state laws concerning contracts, promises, and fiduciaries when they either stopped paying or drastically reduced the pensions of former employees of St. Clare's Hospital? Case Name: Lake v. State Health Plan
Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 436 PA 13-4 Filed: 6/29/2020 Read AARP's (PDF)
Case Issue: Is the health insurance benefit North Carolina promised to state and municipal retirees a form of deferred compensation? Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Insurance Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir. Docket: 20-3226 Filed: 6/10/2020 Read (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in its initial finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees? Case Name: Thole v. U.S. Bank
Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 17-1712 Decided: 6/1/2020 Read AARP's (PDF) Case Result: The Court held that when fiduciary misconduct is not likely to affect a defined benefit plan participant’s actual receipt of benefits, the participant has no standing under ERISA, even though the statute creates a right of action for such a lawsuit. Case Name: Divane v. Northwestern University
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 18-2569 Decided: 3/25/2020 Read AARP's PDF) and (PDF) Case Result: The court held that fiduciaries did not breach their duties, the fees for the Plaintiffs’ investments were not too high, and offering over 200 investment options was not unreasonable. Case Name: Intel v. Sulyma
Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 18-1116 Decided: 2/26/2020 Read AARP's (PDF)
Case Result: The Court, per Justice Alito, held that receiving ERISA disclosures did not automatically mean that the participant had "actual knowledge" of a breach of fiduciary duty, so the three-year statute of limitations did not apply. Case Name: Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco
Court: Cal. Supreme Court Docket: S259558 Decided: 1/29/2020 Read AARP's PDF)
Case Issue: Can a public entity be held liable for age discrimination in disability retirement benefits under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), where the discrimination is mandated by a facially discriminatory legislative provision requiring payment of reduced retirement benefits to persons hired after age 40? Case Result: Sought relief was achieved. California Supreme Court was urged not to review an appellate court decision favorable to the economic security of California state retirees and the Court denied review. Case Name: Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp.
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Dir. Docket: 18-15281 Filed: 9/20/2019 Read AARP's (PDF) Case Issue: Should the Ninth Circuit grant rehearing en banc of its panel's ruling that employers, via arbitration contract, can strip individual 401(k) retirement plan participants of their right under ERISA to bring federal court actions for fiduciary breach on behalf of the entire plan, see 29 U.C.S. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1109(a). Case Name: Teets v. Great-West Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 18-1019 Decided: 4/22/2019 Read AARP's (PDF) and Case Result: Appellate court upheld the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's ERISA claims on the basis that Great West was not acting as a fiduciary. Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Ins.
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir. Docket: 17-4125 Filed: 3/16/2018 Read AARP's (PDF)
Case Issue: Was the district court correct in finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees? Some of the content presented here is in Adobe PDF format. You will need the free to access these files.
Docket Employee Pensions and Benefits
Case Name: Driggs v. SaulCourt: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16426 Decided: 11/1/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage? Case Result: Defendants-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. Case Name: Ely v. Saul
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16427 Decided: 11/1/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage? Case Result: Defendants-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. Case Name: Schmoll v. Saul
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16445 Decided: 11/1/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage? Case Result: Defendants-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their appeal. Case Name: Haley v. TIAA
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 21-805 Filed: 10/18/2021 Read AARP (PDF) Case Issue: Can an exploitative loan program used by many employee benefit plans be challenged on a classwide basis? Case Name: Smith v. Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing (Employee Benefits)
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 20-2708 Decided: 9/10/2021 Read AARP (PDF) and (PDF) Case Result: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss. Case Name: Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 19-1401 Read AARP Amicus (PDF) Filed: 9/10/2021 Case Issue: Is including a fund with excessively high fees a breach of fiduciary duty in an employee benefit plan? Case Name: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. California Secure Choice Retirement Sav. Prog.
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-15591 Read AARP (PDF), , and (PDF) Decided: 5/7/2021 Case Result: The Ninth Circuit panel unanimously held that ERISA does not preempt the CalSavers program because the program does not relate to an employee benefit plan, but is a state-established and maintained savings program. Case Name: Rutledge v. Pharmacy Care Management Assn.
Court: U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket: 18-450 Decided: 12/10/2020 Read AARP's (PDF) and (PDF)
Case Result: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ERISA does not preempt Arkansas’ PBM transparency law. Case Issue: Many states have passed laws regulating health care market players to address rising health care costs. Does ERISA, the federal law that protects employee benefits, say that states can't do this because the state laws could potentially affect employee benefit plans in some remote way? Case Name: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litig (In re) Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 18-346 Decided: 12/7/2020 Read AARP's (PDF) Case Result: In a summary, nonprecedential order, the Second Circuit held that Anthem, as an insurance provider, and Express Scripts, as a pharmacy benefit manager, were not acting as fiduciaries under ERISA when they negotiated prescription drug prices, even though the agreements affected an ERISA plan. Case Name: Indep. Insur. Agents and Brokers v. N.Y.
Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division—Third Department Docket: 530047 Read (PDF) Filed: 8/10/2020 Case Issue: Is New York’s Suitability and Best Interest Rule, which requires insurance agents and brokers to act in the best interests of consumers, a valid regulation? Case Name: Hartshorne v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York
Court: New York Supreme Ct., Schenectady County Docket: 2019-1989 Filed: 9/10/19 Motion to Dismiss Decided: 7/15/2020 Watch and Read (PDF), , (PDF), (PDF) D (PDF) and
Case Issue: Did the Defendants, including the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, violate New York state laws concerning contracts, promises, and fiduciaries when they either stopped paying or drastically reduced the pensions of former employees of St. Clare's Hospital? Case Name: Lake v. State Health Plan
Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 436 PA 13-4 Filed: 6/29/2020 Read AARP's (PDF)
Case Issue: Is the health insurance benefit North Carolina promised to state and municipal retirees a form of deferred compensation? Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Insurance Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir. Docket: 20-3226 Filed: 6/10/2020 Read (PDF) Case Issue: Was the district court correct in its initial finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees? Case Name: Thole v. U.S. Bank
Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 17-1712 Decided: 6/1/2020 Read AARP's (PDF) Case Result: The Court held that when fiduciary misconduct is not likely to affect a defined benefit plan participant’s actual receipt of benefits, the participant has no standing under ERISA, even though the statute creates a right of action for such a lawsuit. Case Name: Divane v. Northwestern University
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 18-2569 Decided: 3/25/2020 Read AARP's PDF) and (PDF) Case Result: The court held that fiduciaries did not breach their duties, the fees for the Plaintiffs’ investments were not too high, and offering over 200 investment options was not unreasonable. Case Name: Intel v. Sulyma
Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 18-1116 Decided: 2/26/2020 Read AARP's (PDF)
Case Result: The Court, per Justice Alito, held that receiving ERISA disclosures did not automatically mean that the participant had "actual knowledge" of a breach of fiduciary duty, so the three-year statute of limitations did not apply. Case Name: Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco
Court: Cal. Supreme Court Docket: S259558 Decided: 1/29/2020 Read AARP's PDF)
Case Issue: Can a public entity be held liable for age discrimination in disability retirement benefits under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), where the discrimination is mandated by a facially discriminatory legislative provision requiring payment of reduced retirement benefits to persons hired after age 40? Case Result: Sought relief was achieved. California Supreme Court was urged not to review an appellate court decision favorable to the economic security of California state retirees and the Court denied review. Case Name: Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp.
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Dir. Docket: 18-15281 Filed: 9/20/2019 Read AARP's (PDF) Case Issue: Should the Ninth Circuit grant rehearing en banc of its panel's ruling that employers, via arbitration contract, can strip individual 401(k) retirement plan participants of their right under ERISA to bring federal court actions for fiduciary breach on behalf of the entire plan, see 29 U.C.S. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1109(a). Case Name: Teets v. Great-West Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 18-1019 Decided: 4/22/2019 Read AARP's (PDF) and Case Result: Appellate court upheld the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's ERISA claims on the basis that Great West was not acting as a fiduciary. Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Ins.
Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir. Docket: 17-4125 Filed: 3/16/2018 Read AARP's (PDF)
Case Issue: Was the district court correct in finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees? Some of the content presented here is in Adobe PDF format. You will need the free to access these files.