The U.S. Department of Labor today filed an amicus brief urging the Third Circuit to affirm a lower court’s decision dismissing claims in Barragan v. Honeywell Int’l Inc. that the employer breached its fiduciary duties by not allocating forfeited funds to pay plan expenses.
In the amicus brief, the department argues that the district court correctly held that the plan sponsor did not breach its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty because the plaintiff’s argument only included a bare allegation that forfeitures were not allocated to pay plan expenses, even though the plan at issue provided for fiduciary discretion over that decision. Instead, the brief explains how a prudent and loyal fiduciary might have concluded that it was important to ensure that plan participants received the contributions expressly promised by the plan in a timely manner.
The department has primary authority to interpret and enforce provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Security Act to ensure fair and impartial administration and compliance with its requirements.
“ERISA’s core principle is to protect the benefits promised to plan participants,” said Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security Daniel Aronowitz. “In Barragan, the district court correctly held that the mere allegation that a fiduciary used forfeitures for something other than fees cannot support a claim for fiduciary breach.”
The department’s amicus brief explains the Secretary of Labor’s view that ERISA’s purpose is to foster established standards of conduct for fiduciaries, and that a fiduciary’s use of forfeited employer contributions in this manner would not necessarily violate ERISA.
The brief also confirms that there is no per se rule barring plan fiduciaries from deciding to allocate forfeited employer contributions to reduce future employer contributions rather than using those funds to offset administrative costs.
“This filing is part of an ongoing effort by the Department to stop regulation by opportunistic litigation,” stated U.S. Department of Labor Solicitor Jonathan Berry. “The Department previously advanced the same legal analysis in Wright v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Hutchins v. HP Inc., cases involving materially similar fact patterns in which the district courts likewise dismissed the claims. “Together, these cases reflect a consistent application of ERISA principles governing fiduciary discretion.”
Read the department’s amicus brief in Barragan v. Honeywell Int’l Inc .