How to Minimize Judicial Review of ERISA Fiduciary Decisions
“Seyfarth Synopsis: The courts have stated that their review of fiduciary decisions is both exacting and deferential. A recent decision from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit offers help to ERISA benefit professionals who prefer to maximize judicial deference in favor of the fiduciaries,” write Mark Casciari and Ronald Kramer in Seyfarth’s Fiduciary Governance.
“One of the enduring paradoxes of ERISA litigation is the judicial standard of review of fiduciary decisions. The standard of review is important because an easier standard will uphold more fiduciary decisions in court and encourage more individuals to serve as fiduciaries. No one who acts in good faith – as the vast majority of ERISA fiduciaries do – likes to make tough decisions and be sued or reversed.”
