-
A Northern District of California decision that tossed similar claims against HP just last month
-
A Southern District of California ruling dismissing an ERISA suit against Thermo Fisher Scientific in 2023
-
Federal court victories for Honeywell, BAE, and Home Depot
These precedents, AT&T argues, demonstrate that courts have consistently rejected the notion that reallocating forfeitures constitutes a fiduciary breach, particularly when those forfeitures remain within the plan.
“Courts have dismissed analogous anti-inurement claims… explaining that ‘allocation of forfeitures to reduce the employer’s matching contribution does not implicate the anti-inurement provision,’” AT&T wrote, quoting U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson from the Thermo Fisher case.
Legal Representation
-
Luis Hernandez is represented by Joshua H. Haffner, Alfredo Torrijos, and Vahan Mikayelyan of Haffner Law PC.
-
AT&T is represented by Catalina J. Vergara, Meaghan VerGow, Deanna Rice, and William D. Pollak of O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
What’s Next?
While Hernandez’s counsel has not yet commented publicly, all eyes are on the court’s response to AT&T’s argument. If the judge sides with the telecom giant, it could deal another blow to a rising tide of ERISA class actions seeking to reinterpret fiduciary obligations in the modern retirement landscape.
In this legal chess match, the question remains: is AT&T safeguarding a plan or stacking the deck?
