Labor Law

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. — Study Notes

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008)

Study notes for LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

An individual participant in a 401(k) plan can sue fiduciaries for losses to their account due to breaches of duty.
Professor Notes

In LaRue v. DeWolff, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of fiduciary duties in 401(k) plans and affirmed individual participants' rights to seek remedies for losses due to fiduciary breaches. The Court focused on the specific language of ERISA § 502(a)(2), illustrating its application to individual accounts within defined contribution plans. Professors may emphasize the implications of this ruling for how plan fiduciaries must operate and the potential for increased litigation as participants assert their rights under ERISA.

The case also raises critical questions about the role of individual accountability and the expectations placed on both plan participants and fiduciaries. Professors might examine the tension between protecting participants' assets and the fiduciaries' need for some discretion and flexibility in managing plans. These issues can lead to rich classroom discussions about the balance between regulation and the free market in retirement planning.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the role of fiduciaries in a 401(k) plan in the context of ERISA.
  2. 2What were the specific actions LaRue alleged DeWolff failed to execute?
  3. 3Summarize the Supreme Court's reasoning in holding that individual participants can sue under ERISA § 502(a)(2).
  4. 4What implications does the LaRue decision have for future ERISA litigation?
  5. 5How does this case affect the liability of fiduciaries handling 401(k) plans?
  6. 6Discuss any dissenting opinions and their reasoning.
  7. 7What are the practical implications for plan participants under LaRue?
Mnemonic Device

LaRue’s loss leads to a true review of fiduciary duties.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. RussellUnlike LaRue, Russell limited recovery under ERISA § 502(a)(2) to losses incurred by the plan as a whole, not individual account losses.
Varity Corp. v. HoweIn Varity, the Court dealt with misleading communications by fiduciaries; LaRue focuses specifically on fiduciary duties related to asset management.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Allowing individual participants to sue enhances accountability and reinforces fiduciary responsibilities, ultimately protecting the interests of employees saving for retirement.

Against the Rule

Allowing individual lawsuits may lead to increased litigation costs for fiduciaries, which could deter companies from offering 401(k) plans or burden them with excessive oversight.

Class Discussion Points
  • What are the broader implications of this case for employee rights in retirement planning?
  • How might this ruling impact the behavior of fiduciaries in managing 401(k) plans?
  • What safeguards could be instituted to balance fiduciary discretion with participant protection?
  • Discuss the potential effects of this case on the overall landscape of ERISA litigation.
  • Explore how this decision might influence legislative changes related to retirement plans in the future.
Exam Angle

LaRue v. DeWolff is often tested on how fiduciary duty under ERISA applies to individual accounts and the potential for participant lawsuits. Expect questions on the implications for plan management and litigation risks for fiduciaries.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.