Photo of Chris C. Scheithauer

 

Chris C. Scheithauer advises clients on general civil litigation matters, with a focus on class action employee benefit litigation and counseling under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and other employment litigation and advice. Read Chris C. Scheithauer's full bio.

On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) case, finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in applying the six-year statutory bar in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to plaintiff’s claim alleging that respondents owed a continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent investment selections. Through the decision, the Supreme Court expressly held that ERISA fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments and to remove imprudent investments.

Read the full article.

On March 5, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the finding of a prior Sixth Circuit panel that allowed successful plaintiffs to recover additional equitable relief in the form of disgorgement of profits under a return-on-equity analysis in addition to the recovery of the denied benefits. This decision realigns the Sixth Circuit with the other circuits by requiring that plaintiffs prove a separate injury in order to receive additional equitable relief under ERISA.

Read the full article.

On September 10, 2014, California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (California’s sick leave law) became law.  The new law requires most employers to allow employees to accrue up to three days of paid sick leave per year based on an accrual of at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.  California’s sick leave law does provide for various accrual caps, in deference to employers that already have a paid time off (PTO) policy meeting certain standards, as well as various other exceptions.  Employees may use the paid sick leave to care for themselves or other family members.  Notably, the new law imposes notice, posting and record-retention obligations with which employers must now comply.

Read the full article.

In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court recently ruled that ESOP fiduciaries are not entitled to a presumption of prudence under ERISA in connection with their decisions to buy, hold or sell the employer’s securities. While the elimination of this presumption is a loss for ESOP fiduciaries, the decision imposes additional burdens on plaintiffs that will make it easier for plan sponsors and fiduciaries to defend so-called “stock-drop” cases. It also requires plan sponsors to reevaluate plan language requiring that certain funds be invested in employer securities and to reconsider hiring an independent fiduciary to manage the employer stock fund.

Read the full article.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, suggesting that the Supreme Court will resolve the current division among U.S. circuit courts regarding the application of the “presumption of prudence” in employer stock cases.

To read the full article, click here.