By Jane Meacham, retirement plans editor
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 13-1339, U.S. (May 16, 2016), which encourages Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plaintiffs to allege a “concrete” injury, is viewed by many in the ERISA legal community as likely to reshape litigation against employer-sponsored retirement plans.
 |
The 6-2 decision, which remanded the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington), may lead ERISA plan sponsor defendants to argue more often that a participant’s claim should not proceed in federal court because its alleged injury, which may be an ERISA breach claim, does not rise above a purely technical violation, according to a May 23 blog post by ERISA attorney Mark Casciari of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
The Spokeo decision quickly became case law, cited in the Supreme Court’s remand a week later in the Verizon pension risk transfer suit back to appellate court. In that case, Pundt v. Verizon Communications, the question presented was whether a participant in an ERISA defined benefit plan has Article III standing to sue to challenge an ERISA violation, such as a fiduciary breach causing losses to the plan’s assets, regardless of loss to his or her individual benefits.