Employment

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a case addressing the pleading standard for prohibited-transaction claims under § 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  Section 406(a) proscribes certain transactions between plans and “parties in interest” absent a statutory exemption enumerated under ERISA § 408.  The core question on appeal was whether plaintiffs must allege, as an element of a prohibited-transaction claim under § 406(a), that an exemption under § 408 does not render the challenged transaction lawful.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications, the Court held that exemptions under § 408 provide affirmative defenses to liability under § 406(a).  Consequently, plaintiffs need not allege that any of the exemptions set forth in § 408 are unavailable to state a plausible claim for relief.  Rather, the burden falls on plan fiduciary defendants to plead and prove that an exemption under § 408 nullifies a plaintiff’s claim.

The Court recognized that its decision in Cunningham could make it more difficult for defendants to secure the dismissal of prohibited-transaction claims by invoking a statutory exemption.  If so, plan sponsors (and other fiduciaries) could be forced to engage in costly discovery defending transactions that ERISA expressly permits, effectively penalizing them for providing valuable and necessary services to participants.

Provided below is a more detailed discussion of Cunningham, divided into three parts.  The first part briefly discusses the legal framework governing prohibited-transaction claims.  The second part summarizes the Court’s analysis.  The third part concludes with an overview of potential mitigation strategies.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)

New York lawmakers have been busy enacting a number of laws and regulations in 2023 that impose new requirements on employers, several of which have recently taken effect.  New York employers may need to update their policies, agreements, and practices to comply with the new laws, as summarized below.Continue Reading New York Employers Beware:  New Employment Laws Are In Effect And On The Horizon

Introduction

On 10 May, the Department for Business and Trade (the “DBT”) released the regulatory reform update “Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy” – the first in a series of updates on how the government intends to reform regulations to support economic growth.  This first package…

Continue Reading UK Employment Law: Government plans to cut Red Tape for UK Businesses

2023 will likely see employment lawyers and HR professionals (in the UK and further afield) grappling with a number of key employment-related legal and policy developments. In this alert we highlight some of the most important ones.

  1. Brexit: The Employment Law Fallout

When the UK left the European Union on…

Continue Reading UK Employment: Top Five Hot Topics in 2023

Mandatory gender pay gap reporting is new to Ireland and is likely to attract media attention and potential comparisons, particularly for multinational and higher profile companies.  Deciding how best to communicate the gender pay gap – if it exists – will be important in averting any particular anxieties which may…

Continue Reading New Gender Pay Gap Reporting – Deadlines Loom in Ireland

Governor Newsom has signed Senate Bill (SB) 1383 to significantly expand the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).  The CFRA is California’s counterpart to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and provides unpaid family and medical leave of up to 12 weeks for eligible employees.  The new law’s key revisions are summarized below and take effect on January 1, 2021.
Continue Reading New Law Expands California Family Rights Act

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has published a final rule, which takes effect on March 16, 2020, outlining the new four-factor approach DOL will use to determine whether, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a business is a “joint employer” of another company’s employees and thus jointly and severally liable for wage and hour obligations.  The new rule comes as good news for employers because it establishes a concrete and narrow standard for determining joint employer status and is expected to provide clearer guidance to federal courts making joint employer determinations.

The final rule represents the first time in 60 years that DOL has issued a joint employer rule, although over the decades it has issued guidance both expanding and contracting the scope of the definition and potential liability.  Furthermore, the rule is consistent with a series of actions that DOL, under the Trump administration, has taken to rescind the previously broader definition of “joint employer” under the Obama administration (including its June 7, 2017 withdrawal of employee-friendly Administrator’s Interpretation guidance documents from 2015 and 2016).Continue Reading DOL Issues Final “Joint Employer” Rule