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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Senator Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill Requiring Large Corporations To Pay For Federal Assistance Programs

Next week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation which would require large employers such as Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other federal assistance programs that their employees receive.  Senator Sanders has stated that the goal is to force these large employers to pay their employees a living wage and cut back on the nearly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go toward funding these federal programs every year. As for the specifics, a 100% tax on government benefits received would be imposed on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees.  For instance, if a Walmart employee received $500 in food stamps, Walmart would be taxed $500. To call this proposed legislation groundbreaking would be an understatement.  I would expect that Senator Sanders, an Independent that caucuses with Democrats, is going to face an uphill battle gett...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more