FOLLOW US

A New Jersey federal judge recently sided with Honeywell International, rejecting a proposed class action that accused the aerospace giant of violating federal benefits laws by using forfeited 401(k) funds to offset its retirement plan contributions instead of covering administrative costs. The ruling came after a close examination of the company's actions and their alignment with the terms of the retirement plan.

Honeywell’s Legal Victory

U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin granted Honeywell's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by former employee Luciano Barragan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The judge ruled that Barragan failed to show any breach of fiduciary duties on Honeywell’s part, noting that the company’s use of forfeited 401(k) funds was in accordance with the plan's established guidelines.

Judge Padin did offer Barragan a potential lifeline, allowing him 30 days to file an amended complaint if he could address the issues raised in the ruling. This decision marked a significant win for Honeywell, which faced allegations of mishandling millions of dollars in forfeited employee funds.

The Battle Over Forfeited Funds

At the heart of the lawsuit was Barragan’s claim that Honeywell mishandled unvested 401(k) funds left behind by employees who had departed the company. Between 2018 and 2022, Barragan argued, the company used these forfeited funds not to cover the plan's administrative expenses but to reduce its contributions to the plan. This, according to Barragan, caused participants to miss out on valuable employer contributions, ultimately reducing the plan’s overall value.

However, Judge Padin disagreed, stating that the use of forfeited funds to offset employer contributions was explicitly allowed by the plan. The judge emphasized that Barragan’s broader argument — that Honeywell should have used the funds solely for administrative costs — lacked the legal grounding needed to stand up in court.

Precedent Set in Similar Cases

In making her ruling, Judge Padin referred to a recent case, Hutchins v. HP Inc., where a California judge dismissed a similar lawsuit. The judge in that case had ruled that ERISA’s fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence did not mandate using forfeited funds for administrative costs, particularly when the plan allowed other options.

Padin echoed this reasoning, noting that Barragan’s claim was too sweeping, proposing that any time a fiduciary had a choice between using forfeited funds for employer contributions or administrative expenses, they must always opt for the latter. This theory was deemed overly broad and implausible by the judge, who pointed out that it would effectively tie the hands of fiduciaries in all scenarios.

Court Rejects Anti-Inurement and Prohibited Transaction Claims

Barragan's lawsuit also accused Honeywell of violating ERISA’s anti-inurement provision, which prohibits plans from benefiting any party outside of the participants. The judge, however, found that the forfeited funds remained within the plan and were simply reallocated to other participants. As a result, Honeywell did not violate the anti-inurement provision.