ERISA Industry Committee Archives - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG

ERISA Industry Committee

McDermott Submits Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court in United Behavioral Health

by Charlie Seidell | Jan 23, 2024 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

On January 2, 2024, McDermott filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) and the United States Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) in United Behavioral Health v. David K., No. 23-586, in the US Supreme Court. The case presents two questions of broad public importance concerning the requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for denials of health benefits. But underlying the two questions is an even more fundamental Administrative Procedure Act (APA) issue: May a court, at the invitation of an agency in an amicus brief, effectively amend regulations by judicial fiat, providing the agency with an end run around the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures?

The answer to that question should be an obvious no. But that is precisely what happened in the court of appeals in this case. After the plaintiffs filed their response brief, the US Department of Labor (DOL) filed an amicus brief urging a radically new interpretation of regulations the agency had promulgated to implement ERISA’s procedural protections. In essence, the DOL argued that its disability- and health-benefit regulations should be read to contain the same procedural requirements, despite clear regulatory language specifying that some requirements only apply in one context and not the other. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit adopted the DOL’s position, decreeing a new regulatory requirement for health-benefit denials that the DOL, in dual 2015 and 2016 rulemakings, expressly considered and chose to adopt only for disability-benefit denials and not for health-benefit denials.

If not corrected by the Supreme Court, the decision will stand as an invitation to agencies to file amicus briefs in the courts of appeals, advocating for substantial changes to their regulations without the bother (or transparency) of APA rulemaking. When so much lawmaking today is undertaken by unaccountable federal bureaucrats, that is a deeply troubling prospect. ERIC and the Chamber supported the petition, explaining the legal and practical issues with the approach the DOL and Tenth Circuit mutually took. Agency interpretations that defy clear regulatory text are entitled to no deference because they are invalid (especially after the Court’s decision in Kisor v. Wilkie). Ignoring this basic proposition of administrative law undercuts the core values served by the APA, including transparency and accountability. Most directly, however, an agency’s decision to seek backdoor revisions to its rules through interpretations announced in litigation deprive the agency of the benefit of public comment that can provide critical data and analysis to inform the agency’s policymaking. Had the DOL engaged in notice and comment, as it should have done, commenters would have presented key distinctions between the disability- and health-benefit contexts; without that information, the DOL’s decision was not fully informed.

ERIC and the Chamber are frequent amici in cases concerning ERISA and the APA’s interpretation and requirements. While the Supreme Court grants only a tiny fraction of the petitions it receives each term, the amici are hopeful that this brief will help focus the Court’s attention on this [...]

Continue Reading

Employer Group Urges Justices To Hear Seattle Benefits Row

by Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew Liazos | Nov 16, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Retirement Plans

An employer group says the federal government erred in arguing that a Seattle benefits mandate for hotel workers doesn’t conflict with federal law. According to this Law360 article, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) asked the US Supreme Court to review a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that backed the Seattle ordinance despite arguments from the US Department of Labor that the law doesn’t contradict the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. McDermott’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos represent ERIC.

Access the article.

ERIC Petitions US Supreme Court on Seattle Healthcare Case

by Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew Liazos | May 11, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

McDermott Will & Emery’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos, are co-counsel on a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). The petition calls for review of ERIC’s legal challenge to the City of Seattle’s hotel healthcare “play or pay” ordinance. The ordinance mandates hospitality employers make specified monthly healthcare expenditures for their covered local employees if their healthcare plans do not meet certain requirements. The petition demonstrates that Seattle’s ordinance is a clear attempt to control the benefits provided under medical plans in violation of the preemption provision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). This case is of significant national importance. Several other cities have proposed making similar changes, and complying with these types of ordinances will substantially constrain the ability of employers to control the terms of their medical plans on a uniform basis. ERIC’s petition is joined by several trade associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council and the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Read ERIC’s petition for writ of certiorari here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

ERIC Files Amicus Brief Rebutting DOL Attempt to Create New Regulations in Lawsuit

by Andrew Liazos, Michael B. Kimberly and Charlie Seidell | Apr 28, 2022 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

McDermott Will & Emery’s Andrew C. Liazos, Michael B. Kimberly and Charlie Seidell recently filed an amicus brief in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). McDermott filed the brief in response to a US Department of Labor (DOL) amicus brief that advanced a novel interpretation of its regulations which, if adopted through litigation, would change longstanding procedures for benefit determinations under self-funded medical plans sponsored by large employers. The amicus brief focuses on key arguments against the DOL’s attempted regulatory reinterpretation, including that:

DOL may not rewrite its regulations outside of notice-and-comment rulemaking;
DOL’s interpretation of its own regulations is inconsistent with the plain text of the regulations;
There are good policy reasons underlying differential treatment of healthcare and disability benefits determinations; and
DOL’s interpretation of the regulations in its amicus brief is not entitled to deference under the Supreme Court decision in Kisor.

Read ERIC’s amicus brief here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

ERIC Challenges Oregon Reporting Requirements for Retirement Plans

by McDermott Will & Emery and Andrew Liazos | Oct 13, 2017 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Employment, Retirement Plans

On October 12, 2017, McDermott Will & Emery filed a lawsuit on behalf of The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) challenging new reporting requirements under Oregon law as applicable to retirement plans subject to ERISA. Below is a press release from ERIC and Q&As regarding this litigation.

OregonSaves is the state of Oregon’s state-run retirement program that automatically enrolls employees of employers into individual retirement arrangements (IRAs). Unless an employee opts out of OregonSaves, a portion of each paycheck is added to an IRA account in the employee’s name. Oregon is the first state to establish an auto-enrollment IRA program.

An employer that offers a qualified plan is not required to participate in OregonSaves, but only if it has a valid and current certificate of exemption. Obtaining this exemption depends upon reporting to the state of Oregon regarding an employer’s qualified plan. For employers with 100 or more employees in Oregon, this filing is due by November 15, 2017. The ERIC lawsuit alleges that ERISA’s express preemption provision preempts this reporting requirement.

This is the latest action by a state to impose reporting requirements on ERISA covered plans. Previously the state of Vermont (and other states) sought to require ERISA medical benefit plans to report their claims experience for purposes of compiling a so-called All Payor Claims Database (APCD). In the 2016 case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the US Supreme Court held that ERISA preempted Vermont’s APCD reporting requirement.

ERIC supports state auto-enrollment programs intended to increase access to retirement savings plans if such programs do not infringe on employers that already provide ERISA-governed retirement plans. Tracking and complying with additional reporting burdens imposed by state-run retirement plans on a state by state basis would be unduly burdensome for employers.

View the full ERIC Q&A here.

There has been some prominent coverage on this case, including Industry group sues over Oregon retirement plan, Employers sue to block OregonSaves requirements, ERIC files lawsuit against Oregon Retirement Savings Board, ERISA Industry Committee sues to stop OregonSaves reporting demands and Oregon’s retirement-savings plan faces legal challenge. The team will continue to monitor and provide regular updates.

No Seventh Circuit Rehearing in Kraft ERISA “Excessive Fees” Case

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 9, 2011 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans

by Chris C. Scheithauer and Joseph S. Adams

As previously described in this blog earlier this year, a divided Seventh Circuit panel reversed summary judgment in favor of Kraft Foods Global, Inc. in a class action involving allegedly excessive fees in the Kraft 401(k) plan. Shortly thereafter, Kraft petitioned for rehearing of the case by the entire Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. Further, a “friend of the court” brief submitted jointly by The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), the American Benefits Council (ABC), the Profit Sharing/401k Council of America (PSCA), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the Seventh Circuit to rehear the case en banc.

However, on May 26, 2011, in a single page opinion, the Seventh Circuit denied Kraft’s motion, noting that no judge in active service for the Seventh Circuit requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc and that the original three judge panel voted 2-1 against rehearing the case – the same split as in the panel’s original order reversing summary judgment.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit’s original order reversing summary judgment will likely be the “go-to” cite for plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to escape summary judgment on excessive fee claims. However, as noted by the dissent in that order, the Seventh Circuit’s decision “will only serve to steer [fiduciaries’] attention toward avoiding litigation instead of managing employee wealth.”