1. DOL Home
  2. Agencies
  3. Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
  4. About EBSA
  5. Our Activities
  6. Resource Center

Amicus Briefs Under ERISA

Additional amicus briefs.

Expand All
  • Richard J. Kwasny v. Thomas Perez, Secretary Department of Labor • PDF Version • August 10, 2016
    Amicus Brief
  • Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc. • PDF Version • May 24, 2016
    Amicus Brief
  • Schoenfeld v. Perez • PDF Version • July 15, 2016
    Response Brief
  • Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee • PDF Version • September 9, 2016
    Amicus Brief
  • Hitchcock v. Cumberland Univ. 403(b) DC Plan • PDF Version • September 2, 2016
    Amicus Brief
  • Perez v. Harris (In re Harris) • PDF Version • September 30, 2016
    Amicus Brief
  • Fletcher v. Convergex Group, LLC et al. • PDF Version • June 27, 2016
    Amicus Brief.
  • Solnin v. Sun Life & Health Insurance Co, Genworth Life & Health Insurance Co, GE Group Life Assurance Co, Phoenix Life Insurance Co • PDF Version • June 19, 2016
    Amicus Brief.
  • In Re Lorna Clause • PDF Version • June 16, 2016
    Amicus Brief.
  • Trujillo v. Landmark Enterprises • PDF Version • May 6, 2016
    Amicus Brief.
  • Severstal Wheeling, Inc. Retirement Committee, et al. v. WPN Corp., et al. • PDF Version • March 15, 2016
    Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion.
  • Whitley v. BP, plc • PDF Version • March 11, 2016
    Amicus curaie in support of plaintiff-appellees.
  • Allen v. GreatBanc Trusty Company • PDF Version • February 16, 2016
    Amicus in support of appellants requesting reversal.
  • Perez v. Koresko • PDF Version • February 10, 2016
    Brief for appellee Secretary of Labor.
  • Smith v. AEGON Companies Pension Plan • PDF Version • November 25, 2015
    Amicus curiae.
  • Perez v. Koresko • PDF Version • November 9, 2015
    Brief of appellee Secretary of Labor.
  • McCulloch Orthopaedic Surgical v. United HealthCare Insurance Co. • PDF Version • October 22, 2015
    Amicus curaie supporting plaintiffs-appellants.
  • Kelley et. al. v. Fidelity Management Trust Company et. al. • PDF Version • September 21, 2015
    Amicus curiae supporting plaintiffs-appellants.
  • Perez v. Doyle • PDF Version • September 3, 2015
    Brief, for the Secretary.
  • Perez v. Bruister • PDF Version • July 29, 2015
    Brief, for the Secretary.
  • Bond v. Marriott • PDF Version • May 28, 2015
    Amicus, supporting plaintiffs-appellants.
  • RJR Pension v. Tatum • PDF Version • May 27, 2015
    Amicus, on petition for a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • Barboza v. California Ass'n of Professional Firefighters • PDF Version • May 22, 2015
    Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant for panel rehearing.
  • Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. • PDF Version • May 19, 2015
    Amicus, on petition for a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • McCaffree Financial Corp. v. Principal Life Insurance Co. • PDF Version • April 8, 2015
    Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal.
  • Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company • PDF Version • October 15, 2014
    Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellee
  • Robert Plan Corporation, Kenneth Kirschenbaum v. United States Department of Labor • PDF Version • October 7, 2014
    Brief for the United States Department of Labor.
  • Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund • PDF Version • July 28, 2014
    Amicus, in support of petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
  • Secretary, Department of Labor v. Koresko • PDF Version • June 27, 2014
    Brief for the Secretary of Labor.
  • Santomenno v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company • PDF Version • May 28, 2014
    Amicus, corrected, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal.
  • No. 13-130 Thurber v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. • PDF Version • May 1, 2014
    Amicus.
  • No. 13-550 Glenn Tibble v. Edison International • PDF Version • May 1, 2014
    Amicus, supporting petitioners.
  • New York State Psychiatric Association, Inc., v. UnitedHealth Group • PDF Version • April 28, 2014
    Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal.
  • Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank • PDF Version • March 31, 2014
    Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant.
  • No. 12-751 Fifth Third Bancorp v. John Dudenhoffer • PDF Version • March 1, 2014
    Amicus, supporting respondents.
  • Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company • November 10, 2008
    Brief for the Secretary of Labor as amicus curia supporting appellee's petition for hearing en banc.
  • Johnson v. Couturier • PDF Version • September 24, 2008
    Amicus, in support of motion for preliminary injunction.
  • Chao v. Meixner • PDF Version • July 11, 2008
    DOL argued that the fiduciaries of a health benefit plan are not entitled to a jury trial in DOL's lawsuit under ERISA section 502(a)(2) in which DOL seeks to recover the plan's monetary losses caused by the defendants' alleged fiduciary misconduct because the remedy sought is equitable in nature.
  • Sowers v. FreightCar America • June 6, 2008
    DOL argued that the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction reinstating a class of participants to their employment at a FreightCar plan grants equitable relief within the meaning of ERISA section 502(a)(3).
  • Chao v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc. • PDF Version • May 12, 2008
    Memorandum in further support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
  • McLemore v. Regions Bank • PDF Version • May 5, 2008
    DOL argued that: (1) an ERISA fiduciary who is also the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring an ERISA action and; (2) the defense of in pari delicto cannot be asserted against an ERISA successor trustee.
  • No. 07-841 Amschwand v. Spherion • PDF Version • May, 2008
    Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • No. 07-636 Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings • PDF Version • May, 2008
    Amicus, in support of neither party.
  • Hecker v. Deere • PDF Version • April 2, 2008
    DOL argued that: (1) ERISA section 404(c) does not provide a defense to plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants imprudently and disloyally selected investment choices with excessive fees; (2) fiduciaries' duties to disclose material information can arise from their core statutory duties of prudence and loyalty, not just from specific reporting and disclosure requirements; and (3) the district court erred in holding that defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the selection of funds based solely on the plan documents without regard to the defendants' actions.
  • Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco • PDF Version • March 27, 2008
    DOL argued that the employer spending requirements in San Francisco's Health Care Security Ordinance have a prohibited connection with ERISA plans and are preempted because: (1) they mandate employee benefit structures or their administration because employers can comply with the law's requirements only be establishing or maintaining ERISA plans; and (2) the spending requirements interfere with uniform plan administration.
  • No. 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn • PDF Version • March 21, 2008
    Amicus, supporting respondent.
  • Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corp. • PDF Version • February 5, 2008
    DOL argued that the district court improperly denied class certification where (1) the reasons for denial were unknown, and (2) the district court failed to provide any analysis.
  • Chao v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc. • PDF Version • February 3, 2008
    Memorandum in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
  • No. 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn • PDF Version • December 21, 2007
    Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • Lively v. Dynegy • PDF Version • October 10, 2007
    DOL argued that: (1) Plaintiffs' claim alleging that the Defendants' imprudence with regard to the company stock fund caused plan losses is a derivative claim on behalf of the plan under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2); (2) given the nature of a section 502(a)(2) claim, purported intra-class conflicts do not defeat a finding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) that the prerequisites of a class action have been met; and (3) ERISA section 404(c) does not provide a defense to Plaintiffs' allegations that the fiduciaries imprudently maintained the company stock fund.
  • Evans v. Akers • PDF Version • August 8, 2007
    DOL argued that a former employee who has received a distribution of benefits from his defined contribution pension plan has standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred prior to distribution.
  • No. 06-856 LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg and Assoc., Inc. • PDF Version • August 6, 2007
    Amicus, supporting petitioner.
  • No. 06-856 LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg and Assoc., Inc. • PDF Version • May 18, 2007
    Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • Pfahler v. National Latex Products Co. • PDF Version • March 21, 2007
    DOL argued that: (1) the fiduciaries of a self-insured health plan had a duty to enforce the employer's obligation to contribute sufficient funds to a claims account to pay health claims; (2) the fiduciaries diverted participant contributions to pay the employer's general creditors and failed to enforce ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a); and (3) the participants may recover an amount equal to their unpaid health claims under ERISA section 502(a)(3) from the fiduciaries who misrepresented that the claims would be paid.
  • Tullis v. UMB Bank • PDF Version • March 6, 2007
    DOL argued that participants in a defined contribution plan may sue under ERISA section 502(a)(2) for losses to their defined contribution plan caused by fiduciary breaches, notwithstanding that those losses will be allocated only to their individual accounts.
  • Chao v. Community Trust Co. • PDF Version • February 5, 2007
    Secretary's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
  • Harzewski v. Guidant Corp. • PDF Version • December 28, 2006
    DOL argued that a former employee who has received a benefit distribution from a pension has standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred prior to the distribution.
  • Rogers v. Baxter International, Inc. • December 8, 2006
    DOL argued that ERISA section 502(a)(2) confers standing on persons seeking monetary relief for a defined contribution plan due to an alleged breach of fiduciary duty even though the relief will be allocated only to a subset of participants in the plan.
  • Calpine Corporation • PDF Version • November 16, 2006
    DOL argued that fiduciaries of a defined contribution pension plan were not entitled to a presumption that they were prudent when they continued to purchase employer stock after they became aware of accounting irregularities concerning the company.
  • Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Felder • PDF Version • November 6, 2006
    The Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act is preempted because it "relates to" employee benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA section 514(a), by mandating that employers pay a certain level of health care benefits to their employees or pay a penalty to the State.
  • Howell v. Motorola, Inc. • PDF Version • November 1, 2006
    DOL argued that a former participant of a 401(k) plan, who had received a distribution of benefits, had standing to sue the fiduciaries under ERISA section 502(a)(2) and the participant had a "colorable claim for benefits" because the fiduciary breaches allegedly occurred while he was actively enrolled in the plan.
  • Bridges v. American Electric Power Co. • PDF Version • October 19, 2006
    DOL argued that a former participant, who received a distribution of his 401(k) plan account had standing to sue based on his "colorable claim for benefits."
  • Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc. • PDF Version • September 1, 2006
    DOL argued that an employee who has taken his distribution from a defined contribution plan has a "colorable claim for benefits" and, therefore, standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred while he was in the plan because any losses recovered will increase his vested benefits.
  • Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc. • PDF Version • August 16, 2006
    DOL argued that the district court erred when it held that fiduciaries of 401(k) plans have no discretion or fiduciary duty with regard to employer stock funds because relevant plan documents require that they offer the employer stock fund and that an employer match be made in company stock.
  • Dickerson v. Feldman • PDF Version • July 17, 2006
    DOL argued that a participant who received a distribution from a defined contribution plan has standing to sue under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2) to recover losses to the plan resulting from fiduciary breaches that allegedly occurred while he was in the plan.
  • Woods v. Southern Co. • PDF Version • July 14, 2006
    DOL argued that ERISA does not require plaintiff to exhaust internal plan review procedures before bringing suit under sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) for losses to a plan caused by fiduciary breaches; and exhaustion is not required when a plan provides no procedures for review of fiduciary breach claims, the reviewing fiduciary would have been powerless to provide the loss remedy sought by plaintiffs, and exhaustion of the review procedure provided by the plan would have been futile.
  • LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc. • PDF Version • July 12, 2006
    DOL argued that the appellate panel erred when it held that a plan participant seeking losses attributable to his 401(k) plan account resulting from a fiduciary's failure to follow his investment instruction may not sue for losses to the plan. The participant alleged that there were fewer assets in the plan as a result of the fiduciary breach and, therefore, he was authorized to sue under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2) which provide for recovery of "any losses" to the plan.
  • Holtzscher v. Dynegy Inc. • PDF Version • June 28, 2006
    DOL argued that former participants of a defined contribution pension plan who have received their lump sum payments have standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that caused losses to the plans before termination; and former participants have colorable claims for benefits because losses recovered by the plans will result in larger benefit payments to them.
  • Vaughn v. Bay Environmental Management Inc. • PDF Version • June 7, 2006
    DOL argued that plaintiffs, who claim that fiduciary breaches caused a diminution in the amount of benefits they were paid when the defendant terminated the defined contribution plans in which they participated, have standing to bring their suit. Plaintiffs have a colorable claim that alleged fiduciary breaches have affected their plan benefits and thus meet the statutory standing criteria. Termination of the plans does not destroy standing.
  • Green v. ExxonMobil Corp. • PDF Version • May 25, 2006
    DOL argued (1) that ERISA section 502(a)(3) authorized an award of make-whole monetary relief for a beneficiary against a breaching fiduciary and (2) that a beneficiary may bring a lawsuit simultaneously alleging that he is entitled to make-whole monetary relief for fiduciary breaches resulting in a denial of the benefits.
  • No. 05-260 Sereboff v Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. • PDF Version • February, 2006
    Amicus, supporting respondent
  • 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: (1) An action to enforce the terms of a state anti-subrogation insurance statute is removable to federal court under the "complete preemption" doctrine; and (2) ERISA likewise completely preempts an action to enforce the provisions of the state statute that provide for penalties for improper or untimely benefit determinations.
  • 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.
  • Sardagna v. Glaziers Pension Trust • PDF Version • October 15, 2002
    Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.
  • 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 • PDF Version • August 30, 2002
    DOL argued that: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) That directed trustees cannot follow directions that they know, or because of "red flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise violate ERISA; (7) That participants may recover monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached their duties with regard to the cash balance plan; and (8) -+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.
  • 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).