Skip to main content

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Stricter Statute of Limitations Deadline For ERISA Suits


Earlier this morning, the United States Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, holding that an employee does not necessarily have "actual knowledge", under Section 1113(2), of the information contained in disclosures that are received but in which the employee does not read or recall reading.  Consequently, the Court held that to meet the "actual knowledge" requirement, the employee must have in fact become aware of that information.

Taking a step back here, I had previously written about the case, prior to oral arguments.  The case itself involved a claim by Christopher Sulyma ("Sulyma"), a former engineer at Intel, that the retirement plans offered by the company had imprudently over allocated funds to alternative investments (in violation of the plan administrators' fiduciary duties.)  Intel argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as the information about the investments of the retirement plans had previously been provided to Sulyma.  Sulyma had apparently visited the links provided in the e-mails but could not remember whether he had actually read them.  (Generally speaking, there is a six year statute of limitations in which to bring a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), such as Sulyma's.  However, that statute of limitations can be narrowed to three years, if the claimant had "actual knowledge of the breach or violation."  As a result, if it can be shown that the claimant had actual knowledge, suit must be brought no more than three years after "the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation."  In this case, Sulyma's suit came more than three years after he had been provided the information.)

The District Court granted Intel's motion for summary judgment, holding that Sulyma had actual knowledge by way of Intel's delivery of the information about the retirement plans, thereby triggering the three year statute of limitations.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that although Sulyma had been provided the information more than three years before suit was filed, it could not be established he actually read the information (therefore lacking "actual knowledge.)

The Supreme Court noted that while ERISA's "plain and unambiguous statutory language" must be enforced "according to its terms", ERISA did not define "actual knowledge."  As a result, the Court found that "actual knowledge" must be given its plain meaning.  After a review of the meaning of "actual knowledge", as set forth in the dictionary, the Court found that in order to have "actual knowledge", one must in fact be aware of it.  While "constructive knowledge" will sometimes be imputed to a person that fails to learn something that a reasonably diligent person would have learned, the Court pointed out that Congress had failed to add to the language of Section 1113(2) to include both "actual" and "constructive" knowledge.  Turning to the facts of this case, Justice Alito (delivering the opinion for the Court), wrote that it could not be shown that Sulyma had "actual knowledge" such that the three year statute of limitations would be triggered.  While the relevant information was apparently disclosed to Sulyma, more than evidence of disclosure is required to establish "actual knowledge."  As a result, to meet the "actual knowledge" requirement, it must be shown that the claimant had in fact become aware of the information.  The Court therefore affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling in favor of Sulyma.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more