ERISA Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Plan Not Subject to Arbitration

Carlton Fields
Contact

Carlton Fields

Although courts routinely enforce arbitration agreements, they will not compel arbitration of claims outside the scope of the parties’ agreement. That was the outcome in Hawkins v. Cintas Corp., in which two former employees and participants in the company’s defined contribution retirement plan sued the company for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for mismanaging the plan.

The company moved to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration provision in the plaintiffs’ employment agreements. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that because the action was filed on behalf of the plan, the arbitration provisions in the employment agreements — which did not include the plan — did not apply. In response, the company argued that because the plan is a defined contribution plan with individual accounts, the participants’ claims are inherently individualized.

The court disagreed, holding that when a cause of action is focused on mismanagement of the entire plan, not specific individual accounts, the claim falls “squarely” within ERISA section 409 and the relief sought is to benefit the plan. The court also found that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the plan and the company. The arbitration clause in the employment agreement was limited to claims by an employee and did not extend to nonentities, such as the plan. Consequently, the court denied the motion to compel arbitration.

Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court acknowledged that the outcome might have been different if the plan documents had required arbitration of claims, disputes, or breaches arising out of the plan. The court’s reasoning seems, however, to foreclose the possibility that an arbitration provision in an employment agreement could extend to claims that other parties (e.g., a plan) could have against the employer. But careful thought should be given to the possibility of including language in employee agreements that covers such claims.

The case provides yet another cautionary tale about the importance of careful drafting of plan documents and arbitration provisions.

The action is on appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlton Fields | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Carlton Fields
Contact
more
less

Carlton Fields on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.