×
Menu
Search
Home > Blog > Blog > Fiduciaries > Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of ERISA Record-Keeping Fees Lawsuit

Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of ERISA Record-Keeping Fees Lawsuit

In Boyette v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., No. 24-1279-CV, 2025 WL 48108 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2025), decided by Circuit Judges Kearse, Raggi, and Lohier, Jr., the court upheld the dismissal of ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Sheila Boyette and Tiffany Jiminez, were former employees of Montefiore Medical Center and participants in its 403(b) retirement plan. They filed a lawsuit against Montefiore and its fiduciaries, alleging that the plan’s administrators breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Specifically, they claimed that the defendants failed to properly monitor and control the plan’s recordkeeping fees, which they argued were excessively high. The recordkeeping fees in question ranged from $34 to $63 per participant annually. The appellants compared these fees to a purported reasonable range of $25 to $30, based on other retirement plans. They argued that the fees were excessive, and that Montefiore’s fiduciaries managed the plan imprudently.

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ ERISA duty of prudence claims. It held that the appellants failed to provide adequate benchmarks to demonstrate that the recordkeeping fees were excessive relative to the services provided. The court emphasized that comparisons to other plans must consider the quality and scope of services rendered. It also noted that Montefiore had actively managed and reduced the plan’s fees over time, which contradicted claims of imprudence.

The court also rejected the appellants’ argument that recordkeeping services were fungible across providers. The court pointed out the variability in fees among comparator plans, indicating that such services are not standardized.

Lastly, the court found that the appellants’ derivative claim of failure to monitor was untenable without a successful primary claim of imprudence. Since the court determined that there was no breach of the duty of prudence, the monitoring claim failed as well.

SHARE THIS POST:

facebook twitter shop

*Please note that this blog is a summary of a reported legal decision and does not constitute legal advice. This blog has not been updated to note any subsequent change in status, including whether a decision is reconsidered or vacated. The case above was handled by other law firms, but if you have questions about how the developing law impacts your ERISA benefit claim, the attorneys at Roberts Disability Law, P.C. may be able to advise you so please contact us.

Get The Help You Need Today

Inner form image

LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE

Contact Us

We know how to get your insurance claim paid. Call today at:
(510) 230-2090

Close Popup