Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Untimely ERISA § 510 Claim, Rejects Attempt to Recast Claim as Fiduciary Breach

In Mitchell v. H-E-B, L.P., No. 25-50227, 2025 WL 3496980 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2025), an unpublished per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of H-E-B, holding that the plaintiff’s ERISA § 510 interference claim was untimely and that she failed to properly plead a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

Plaintiff Mitchell alleged that H-E-B terminated her employment to interfere with her attainment of benefits under the employer’s Work Injury Benefit Plan, asserting a denial-of-benefits theory under ERISA § 510. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted summary judgment, finding the claim barred by the two-year statute of limitations applied to § 510 claims.

Mitchell appealed, arguing that the court should have construed her pleadings as alleging a breach of fiduciary duty subject to ERISA’s longer three- or six-year limitations period under § 413, 29 U.S.C. § 1113. Because Mitchell failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report despite explicit warning, the Fifth Circuit applied plain-error review on appeal.

The Fifth Circuit found that Mitchell never argued in the district court that she was asserting a fiduciary-breach claim. Her briefing only invoked § 413 to challenge the limitations period for her § 510 claim—not to identify a separate cause of action. Under established Fifth Circuit precedent, issues not raised below are forfeited. Thus, Mitchell forfeited a fiduciary-breach claim for failing to raise it below.

Even if not forfeited, the panel concluded the complaint did not allege a fiduciary-breach claim. The pleading asserted a single cause of action for denial of benefits, expressly citing § 510; referenced § 502(a)(1)(B) only to describe the remedies available for benefits claims; and failed to cite § 502(a)(2) or otherwise identify fiduciary misconduct. The court explained that a lone reference to H-E-B’s fiduciary responsibilities in administering benefits was insufficient to put the employer on notice of a fiduciary-breach theory. See Sims v. City of Madisonville, 894 F.3d 632, 643 (5th Cir. 2018) (fair notice requires more than an isolated inference).

Lastly, because the only properly pleaded claim arose under § 510, the controlling limitations period was the two-year Texas statute applied to wrongful discharge and discrimination claims. Mitchell filed suit more than two years after her termination, rendering the claim time-barred.

In sum, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that Mitchell forfeited her fiduciary-breach argument; her complaint did not plead a fiduciary-duty claim; and her § 510 claim was untimely under the applicable two-year limitations period.