United States: Striking Down Decades-Old Precedent, Ninth Circuit Rules That ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims May Be Arbitrated

Last Updated: August 28 2019
Article by Melissa B. Kurtzman and Pamela S.C. Reynolds

On August 20, 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp.,1 overturning its 1984 position in Amaro v. Continental Can Co.2 that lawsuits filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are not arbitrable. The court found that subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions mean that Amaro "is no longer good law."

Dorman is a shift for the Ninth Circuit. Further, though some courts outside the Ninth Circuit have recognized that ERISA does not prohibit arbitration of breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA,3 breach of fiduciary duty claims are not typically arbitrated. If Dorman becomes a guidepost for general acceptance of arbitrating fiduciary claims, the future of ERISA litigation will be significantly impacted.


The plaintiff in this case is a former employee of the defendant financial investment management company, and participated in the company's retirement savings and investment plan (the "401(k) Plan"), a defined-contribution 401(k) retirement plan. In December 2014, the 401(k) Plan was amended to include an arbitration provision, which stated, "[a]ny claim, dispute or breach arising out of or in any way related to the Plan shall be settled by binding arbitration." The provision also set forth a waiver of class or collective action, stating, "any arbitration would be conducted 'on an individual basis only, and not on a class, collective or representative basis,' and that Plan participants waive the right to be part of any class action."

In 2014, the plaintiff was promoted to financial consultant and enrolled in the company's Investor Financial Consultant Compensation Plan (the "Compensation Plan"). The Compensation Plan also included an agreement to arbitrate and stated that "claims for benefits" would be resolved pursuant to the procedures set forth in the 401(k) Plan. The plaintiff left his employment with the company in October 8, 2015, and two months later, ceased participating in both the 401(k) Plan and the Compensation Plan and received a full distribution of his benefits.

The Class Action

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint in 2017 against his former employer, the 401(k) Plan, alleged fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan, and company executives, claiming, among other things, that certain defendants breached their duties of loyalty and prudence under ERISA and violated ERISA's prohibited transaction rules by selecting for inclusion in the 401(k) Plan investment funds that were affiliated with the company. The plaintiff also claimed that members of the Board of Directors breached their duty to monitor the Plan fiduciaries.

The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the terms of the 401(k) Plan and the Compensation Plan.

The District Court's Decision

The district court issued a decision in January 2018 denying the motion to compel arbitration, holding that neither the Plan nor the Compensation Plan required arbitration of the plaintiff's claims. The district court reasoned: (1) the arbitration provision in the 401(k) Plan was inapplicable because it became effective after the plaintiff's participation in the 401(k) Plan ended; and (2) it was "not clear" that the plaintiff's claims "arose out of [his] employment" as was required by the Compensation Plan. The district court also found that his claims were "claims for benefits," which were expressly carved out of the arbitration provision in the Compensation Plan.

The district court also held, in the alternative, that even if the claims in the plaintiff's class complaint fell within the scope of the arbitration provisions in the two plans, the agreements would be unenforceable. The court explained the claims were brought "on behalf of the Plan," and not on the plaintiff's own behalf, and he therefore cannot waive rights that belong to the 401(k) Plan without the 401(k) Plan's consent. The district court acknowledged that the 401(k) Plan did consent to arbitration "by virtue of its Plan Document's arbitration provision" but held that consent was invalid because the 401(k) Plan fiduciaries added the arbitration provision to the 401(k) Plan document after they were sued.4 Thus, the court reasoned, plan fiduciaries cannot insulate themselves from fiduciary responsibility by amending a plan document.5

The Ninth Circuit's Rulings on Appeal

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit overturned its own precedent and rejected all of the district court's bases for denying the defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

First, the court acknowledged that its 1984 Amaro decision "mandated 'minimum standards [for] assuring the equitable character of [ERISA] plans' that could not be satisfied by arbitral proceedings." The court in Amara reasoned that arbitrators, "many of whom are not lawyers, lack the competence of courts to interpret and apply statutes as Congress intended."6 The Ninth Circuit explained that in the 35 years since Amaro, however, the Supreme Court has held arbitrators are competent to interpret and apply federal statutes.

The Ninth Circuit found the Supreme Court's holding in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant—which had dismissed "concerns that the arbitral forum was inadequate . . . so long as a prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause of action in an arbitral forum"7is irreconcilable with Amaro. In light of this, the Ninth Circuit held that Amaro is no longer binding precedent.8

In a separate, unpublished Memorandum, the Ninth Circuit rejected all of the district court's bases for denying the defendants' motion to compel arbitration.9 Specifically, the Ninth Circuit stated that the district court erred by:

  • finding that the plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration provision in the Plan because the record reflected that he was a participant in the 401(k) Plan for nearly a year while the provision was in effect;
  • reasoning that the plaintiff was not bound by the 401(k) Plan's arbitration provision on the basis that he did not agree to arbitrate his ERISA § 502(a) claims because the relevant question was whether the 401(k) Plan had agreed to arbitrate such claim, which it had with the addition of the arbitration provision;
  • holding that the amendment adding the arbitration provision to the 401(k) Plan was an effort to insulate fiduciaries from ERISA liability, stating that provision does not relieve the fiduciaries of responsibility or liability but, instead, selects a forum for litigating fiduciary claims that offered "quicker, more informal, and often cheaper resolutions for everyone involved";10 and
  • relying on prior Ninth Circuit precedent for the position that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because a plan participant cannot agree to arbitrate ERISA § 502(a) claims without the 401(k) Plan's consent because, as stated above, the 401(k) Plan did consent when the arbitration provision was added.

The court relied on three particular Supreme Court cases in support of its decision enforcing arbitration of the plaintiff's ERISA claims: (1) American Express Co., which holds that claims alleging a violation of a federal statute are generally arbitrable absent a "contrary congressional command," which ERISA does not contain; (2) LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc.,11 which the Court said confirms that ERISA § 502(a)(2) claims are inherently individualized when brought in the context of a defined contribution plan; and (3) the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela,12 which confirms that the parties here should be entered into individual arbitration, as they did not agree to class-wide or collective arbitration. Noting that "arbitration is a matter of contract," the Ninth Circuit stated that the 401(k) Plan's waiver of class-wide and collective arbitration must be enforced according to its terms.13

As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to order arbitration of individual claims limited to seeking relief for the impaired value of the plan assets in the individual's own account resulting from the alleged fiduciary breaches.

The Significance of the Case

The holding in Dorman is momentous because it explicitly states that there is support in Supreme Court precedent for enforcing arbitration agreements and class and collective action waivers in cases involving breach of fiduciary duty claims where an ERISA plan contains such provisions and waivers. The decision, however, leaves unanswered whether claims of benefits in the Ninth Circuit may be subject to arbitration. Particularly notable is the Ninth Circuit's finding that the 401(k) Plan "consented" to arbitration by the addition of the arbitration clause to its terms. As mentioned above, ERISA breach of fiduciary claims are not usually arbitrated. There has been an increase in recent years of ERISA class action litigation, particularly involving claims of breach of fiduciary duty, and should Dorman serve as a guide for ERISA-governed plans and a benchmark for other jurisdictions, the landscape of ERISA litigation could change substantially.

In light of Dorman, more sponsors of ERISA-governed plans may make efforts to adopt an arbitration provision and a class and collective action waiver as part of their plans' terms. However, while the ability to compel arbitration of ERISA claims on an individual basis may be beneficial for some ERISA claims, some plans may prefer that certain claims, such as individual denial of benefits cases, be heard in court. It is advisable that plan sponsors consult with ERISA counsel to consider whether such an amendment would be beneficial to their particular plans or if a carve-out for claims for benefits is an option.


1 9th Circuit Case No. 18-15281, Dkt. No. 52-1.

2 724 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1984).

3 See, e.g., Bird v. Shearson Lehman/American Express, 926 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1991).

4 According to the Ninth Circuit in Dorman, the defendants sought leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration with the district court, after filing the Notice of Appeal, submitting evidence that the arbitration provision took effect while Dorman was still a Plan participant. The district court denied the motion, however.

5 The district court also relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), in which the appellate court held that class action waivers required as a condition of employment violate the National Labor Relations Act, as justification for denying arbitration in the underlying case. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded Morris in 2018.

6 724 F.2d 747, 750, 752.

7 570 U.S. at 235-36 (2013).

8 The court noted that a three-judge panel may overrule prior circuit authority where "an intervening Supreme Court decision undermines an existing precedent of the Ninth Circuit, and both cases are closely on point," citing Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Circuit 2003) (en banc).

9 Dorman, 9th Circuit Case No. 18-15281, Dkt. No. 53.

10 Citing Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).

11 552 U.S. 248 (2008).

12 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).

13 Noting that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states that once it is established that a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement, a court must order arbitration unless the agreement is unenforceable "upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract," the court stated that Dorman did not assert any generally applicable contract defenses.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions