skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Photos representing the workforce - Digital Imagery© copyright 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.
www.dol.gov/ebsa
October 6, 2008    DOL > EBSA > Compliance Assistance > Amicus Briefs   

Amicus Briefs Under ERISA

2004

  • WorldCom Inc  • PDF Version • January 15, 2004
    DOL argued that appointing officials have a duty to monitor the fiduciaries they appoint and that plaintiffs do not have to plead the elements of fraud to state a claim for breaches of fiduciary duty, even when the alleged breaches involve claims of misrepresentation.

2003

  • Millsap v McDonnell-Douglas  • PDF Version • October 9, 2003
    DOL argued that back pay is an available equitable remedy for a violation of the anti-retaliation/discrimination provision in ERISA section 510.

  • Bombardier v Ferrer  • PDF Version • September 11, 2003
    DOL argued that the imposition of a constructive trust over settlement funds held in the trust account of an attorney for a participant is a permissible form of "equitable relief" under the Supreme Court's decision in Great-West Life Ins. Co. v Knudson. DOL also argued that under the plan terms, the plan is entitled to be reimbursed for the full amount expended, without an offset for the amount that the participant expended on attorney's fees in obtaining the third-party tort settlement.

  • Williams Company  • PDF Version • August 21, 2003
    DOL argued that those who have the power to appoint and remove plan fiduciaries are themselves fiduciaries with an ongoing duty to monitor those they appoint.

  • Callery v US Life Insurance Co  • PDF Version • August 20, 2003
    DOL filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff arguing that equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) includes a recovery from a fiduciary of any direct monetary losses caused by a fiduciary's breach of its duties.

  • Arana v Ochsner Health Plan Inc  • PDF Version • April 10, 2003
    DOL argued that:

    • An action to enforce the terms of a state anti-subrogation insurance statute is removable to federal court under the "complete preemption" doctrine; and

    • ERISA likewise completely preempts an action to enforce the provisions of the state statute that provide for penalties for improper or untimely benefit determinations.

2002

  • Gerosa v Savasta  • PDF Version • November 1, 2002
    The district court for the Southern District of New York held that ERISA preempts a state law claim for malpractice brought by plan trustees against actuaries to the plan, but provides a federal common law claim for damages against such entities. DOL argued that the court erred on both points.

  • Stern v IBM  • PDF Version • October 15, 2002
    The district court issued an order holding that IBM's sick leave program constituted an ERISA plan, so that Stern's claim for breach of contract actually stated a claim for ERISA benefits and therefore was properly removed to federal court. DOL argued that under the Secretary's "payroll practices" regulation, the sick leave program is not an ERISA plan.

  • Mario v P&C Food Markets  • PDF Version • September 10, 2002
    DOL argued that a summary plan description need not contain information concerning the discretion afforded the plan administrator to interpret plan terms.

  • Tittle v Enron Part 1 • Part 2 • PDF Version • August 30, 2002
    DOL argued that:

    • The duty to protect retirement plans falls not only on the trustees who directly oversee the plans, but also on top executives and officials who are responsible for appointing the fiduciaries and monitoring their performance;

    • If any of these fiduciaries were aware or should have been aware that the employees were misinformed about the stability of Enron stock, they had a duty to take appropriate action to protect their retirement investments;

    • This could include investigating allegations of accounting fraud, disclosing the true facts to plan participants, the investing public and/or other fiduciaries, and stopping further investment in employer stock;

    • Disclosing information about accounting irregularities to the public, or refusing to purchase more Enron stock and elimination it as an investment option, is fully consistent with the securities laws, which forbid buying or selling stock based on "inside information" that the general public does not have;

    • That fiduciaries have an obligation to ensure that investments in employer securities, whether in a 401(k) plan or an ESOP, are prudent, notwithstanding plan provisions that contemplate or favor such investments;

    • That directed trustees cannot follow directions that they know, or because of "red flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise violate ERISA;

    • That participants may recover monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached their duties with regard to the cash balance plan;

    • That, even if it is a non-fiduciary, Arthur Anderson may be liable for equitable relief if it knowingly participated in the fiduciary breaches of others.

  • Harley v 3M Rehearing  • PDF Version • May 22, 2002
    DOL filed a brief in support of en banc and panel rehearing making the same arguments as in the brief above.

  • Keen v Weaver  • PDF Version • February 13, 2002
    DOL argued that ERISA and the pension plan documents determine the plaintiff's entitlement to benefits, and that the court should not develop a federal common law that would supplant the written designation rule.

  • Ostler v Oce-USA Inc  • PDF Version • February 8, 2002
    DOL argued that equitable relief within the meaning of Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA includes the recovery from a fiduciary of any direct monetary loss caused by the fiduciary's breach of its obligations.

2001

  • Estate of David Egelhoff  • PDF Version • June 26, 2001
    DOL argued that ERISA and the pension plan documents determine the plaintiff's entitlement to benefits, and that the court should not develop a federal common law that would supplant the written designation rule.

  • Benefits Committee v Key Trust  • PDF Version • June 22, 2001
    DOL argued that by remitting to the ESOP's sponsoring employer a payment which the ESOP has no obligation to make under the terms of the plan or otherwise, Key Trust clearly would violate its duty of fiduciary loyalty and commit a prohibited transaction.

  • Harley v 3M  • PDF Version • July 12, 2000
    DOL filed a brief arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the defined benefit pension plan suffered no loss because it was over funded. DOL also argued that the district court erred in applying the adequate consideration test in Section 408(b)(2) to the prohibited transaction because the transaction involved self-dealing and was prohibited by Section 406(b).

About EBSA
Laws & Regulations
Technical Guidance
Compliance Assistance

Consumer Information

FAQs
Contact Us



Phone Numbers