The Anti-Inurement Debate
Plaintiff Leans on ERISA’s “Exclusive Benefit” Clause
Hernandez, represented by Haffner Law PC, frames the issue through a different lens. He cites ERISA’s anti-inurement provision, which mandates that plan assets be used exclusively to benefit participants and defray administrative costs — not to subsidize employers’ future financial obligations.
In his complaint, Hernandez alleges AT&T sidestepped this rule by failing to apply forfeited funds in ways that directly benefited employees, such as lowering fees or increasing plan payouts.
While the complaint is somewhat vague on whether Hernandez remains employed by AT&T, its central claim is clear: the company allegedly violated ERISA by reabsorbing employee funds for its own benefit.
Courtroom Trends Not in Plaintiff’s Favor
Similar Suits Against Big Employers Have Been Dismissed
AT&T’s motion points to a growing list of dismissed ERISA lawsuits that hinge on the same legal theory. The company referenced:
