:: Amicus Brief In LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.
The United States’ amicus brief in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 450 F.3d 570 (4th Cir.2006) may be read here.
Recall that the Section 502(a)(2) issue is whether a participant in a defined contribution plan can seek individualized relief as a proxy for the plan as required by that provision.
As to Section 502(a)(3) issue, the question is whether a claim for make whole relief may be asserted against a fiduciary. The plaintiff petitioned for certiorari and the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General’s office to file an amicus brief to aid in review of the petition.
The brief distinguishes the decision of the Court in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993) (holding that “appropriate equitable relief†does not permit money damages against actuary) on the grounds that LaRue involves a request for monetary relief against a fiduciary whereas Mertens involved a claim against a non-fiduciary. If the Supreme Court takes up the case, as urged by the Solicitor General, we may find out if that distinction makes a difference.
Note: In a concurring opinion in Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., — F.3d —-, 2007 WL 1574869 C.A.3 (N.J.)(May 31, 2007), Circuit Judge Ambro collects the following scholarly treatment of ERISA remedies:
Colleen E. Medill, Resolving the Judicial Paradox of “Equitable Relief†under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 39 J. Marshall L.Rev. 827 (2006);
Maria O’Brien Hylton, Insecure Retirement Income, Wrongful Plan Administration, and Other Employee Benefit Woes-Evaluating ERISA at Age Thirty, 53 Buff. L.Rev.. 1193 (2005) (reviewing James A Wooten, The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974-A Political History (2004));
Lorraine Schmall & Nathan Ihnes, Failure of Equity: Discriminatory Plan Closing as an Irreemediable Injury under ERISA, 55 Cath. U.L.Rev. 81 (2005);
Sarah Beth Spisich, The Aftermath of Davila: Are Healthcare Enrolees Now a Sinking Ship Without a Paddle?, Health Law. 22 (Aug.2005);
James J. Budney & Corey Ditslear, Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning, 58 Vand. L.Rev.. 1, 79-81 (2005);
Robert F. Rich, et al., Judicial Interpretation of Managed Care Policy, 13 Elder L.J. 85 (2005);
Scott M. Aronson, ERISA’s Equitable Illusion: The Unjust Justice of Section 502(a)(3), 9 Employee Rts. & Empl. Pol’Y J. 247 (2005); Langbein, supra;
Judith Resnik, Constricting Remedies: The Rehnquist Judiciary, Congress, and Federal Power, 78 Ind. L.J. 223, 256-72 (2003);
John M. Teske, Note, Damage Suits Under ERISA: Why Third Parties with Discretion over Benefit Plans Must Be Held Accountable, 36 Loy. L.A. L.Rev. . 1753 (2003);
Colleen P. Murphy, Misclassifying Monetary Restitution, 55 Smu L.Rev. 1577 (2002); Daniel J.Meltzer, The Supreme Court’s Judicial Passivity, 2002 Sup.Ct. Rev. 343, 383-84 & n. 164;
Lisa N. Bleed, Note, Enforcing Subrogation Provisions as “Appropriate Equitable Relief†Under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 35 U.S.F. L.Rev. 727 (2001);
Dana M. Muir, Fiduciary Status as an Employer’s Shield: The Perversity of ERISA Fiduciary Law, 2 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.. 391 (2000); Randall J. Gingiss, The ERISA Foxtrot: Current Jurisprudence Takes One Step Forward and One Step Back in Protecting Participants’ Rights, 18 Va. Tax Rev. 417 (1998);
Henry H. Rossbacher et al., ERISA’s Dark Side: Retiree Health Benefits, False Employer Promises and the Protective Judiciary, 9 DePaul Bus. L.J. 305 (1997);
Karen A. Jordan, Travelers Insurance: New Support for the Argument To Restrain ERISA Pre-emption, 13 Yale J. on Reg. 255 (1996);
Susan J. Stabile, The Role of Congressional Intent in Determining the Existence of Implied Private Rights of Action, 71 Notre Dame L.Rev. 861, 894-96 (1996);
Dana M. Muir, ERISA Remedies: Chimera or Congressional Compromise?, 81 Iowa L.Rev. 1 (1995);
Susan J. Stabile, Preemption of State Law by Federal Law: a Task for Congress or the Courts?, 40 Vill. L. Rev . . 1, 33-35 (1995);
Maria Linda Cattafesta, Note, Mertens v. Hewitt Associates: Nonfiduciary Liability for Money Damages under ERISA, 43 Cath. U.L.Rev. 1165 (1994);
Larry J. Pittman, ERISA’s Preemption Clause and the Health Care Industry: an Abdication of Judicial Law-Creating Authority, 46 Fla. L.Rev. 355 (1994);
Robert A. Kamp, The Argument for “Extra-Contractual†Damages under ERISA, 82 Ill. B.J.. 70 (1994); Richard Rouco, Note, Available Remedies under ERISA Section 502(a), 45 Ala. L.Rev. 631 (1994);
Jayne Elizabeth Zanglein, Closing the Gap: Safeguarding Participants’ Rights by Expanding the Federal Common Law of ERISA, 72 Wash. U. L.Q. . 671 (1994);
Gregory A. Hewett, Note, Should Non-Fiduciaries Who Knowingly Participate in a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Be Liable for Damages under ERISA?, 71 Wash. U. L.Q.. 773 (1993).
My own article “Equitable Relief Claims Under ERISA Section 502(a)(3)“ appears in Benefits Law Journal (Spring 2007).
