Skip to content

Menu

Jackson Lewis P.C.  logo
HomeAboutServicesContactSubscribe
Search
Close

Employment Class and Collective Action Update

Universal Health Loses Appeal to Undo 60,000-Person Class in Excessive Fee Case

By Lisa A. Milam on June 11, 2022
Posted in Case Law Update, Class Actions, ERISA & Rule 23

By Alicia M. Chiu

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that as the plan fiduciary of Universal’s defined contribution plan, Universal Health Services Inc. and its plan investment committee (collectively “Universal”) must face a class action claiming its retirement plan included imprudent investment options charging excessive fees to more than 60,000 participants, even though the three named plaintiffs only invested in seven of the 37 plan investment options challenged by their lawsuit.

Universal had appealed a 2021 decision certifying the Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit as a class action covering all of the plan’s 60,000 participants. Universal claimed that the class as certified was overbroad because the three named plaintiffs had only invested in a handful of the challenged funds in the plan and, therefore, their claims were not typical of the class. Universal also argued the plaintiffs only had standing to sue on behalf of others who had invested in the same funds.

A unanimous three-judge panel said that while the named plaintiffs only invested in a fraction of the funds offered by the plan, Universal’s alleged failure to properly evaluate investment fees affected all the funds in the Plan the same way. The appellate court focused on the investment decisions offering the suite of challenged target funds to conclude plaintiffs had a concrete stake in and typical class claims as to those decisions, even though plaintiffs had not invested in all of the funds in that suite. The appellate court applied this same analysis to plaintiffs’ claim Universal failed to follow a prudent process to evaluate investment options offered in the plan. While the appellate court acknowledged that allowing class representatives to bring claims based on funds they didn’t personally hold “may result in some inefficiency at the damages stage” of litigation, the court held that it doesn’t bar class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).

This case is Boley v. Universal Health Servs., No. 21-2014, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 15001 (3rd Cir. June 1, 2022).
Tags: class action, Rule 23
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
COBRA Notice Litigation: Cases Are Mushrooming and Settlements Are, Too
March 3, 2020
Insurance Agents Properly Classified as Independent Contractors, Circuit Court Rules
February 26, 2019
UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISION IN FAVOR OF “CHURCH PLAN” DEFENDANTS
June 5, 2017
Jackson Lewis JacksonLewis.com

About

Class action and multiple plaintiff litigation of discrimination, wage and hour, and other employment-related disputes has risen dramatically during the past decade.  Jackson Lewis attorneys have been successful both in preventing and defending class action and group litigation.

Read More....

Stay Connected

RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Topics

Archives

Editors

  • Mia Farber
  • David R. Golder
  • Eric R. Magnus

Recent Upates

  • Class Action Trends Report: All About Arbitration
  • U.S. Supreme Court Deals Blow to California’s Private Attorneys General Act
  • Universal Health Loses Appeal to Undo 60,000-Person Class in Excessive Fee Case
  • FAA’s Transportation Worker Exception Covers Airline Ramp Agents, U.S. Supreme Court Holds
  • California Supreme Court Rules Additional Penalties May Be Recoverable for Meal & Rest Period Violations

Jackson Lewis Blogs

  • Affirmative Action Law Advisor
  • Benefits Law Advisor
  • California Workplace Law Blog
  • Collegiate & Professional Sports Law Blog
  • Corporate Governance & Internal Investigations Advisor
  • COVID-19 Workplace Law Advisor
  • Data Intelligence Reporter
  • Disability, Leave & Health Management Blog
  • Drug & Alcohol Testing Law Advisor
  • EPL Risk Mitigation Blog
  • ERISA Litigation Advisor
  • Healthcare Workplace Update
  • Immigration Blog
  • Labor & Collective Bargaining
  • Litigators at Work
  • Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Report
  • OSHA Law Blog
  • Pay Equity Advisor Blog
  • Wage & Hour Law Update
  • Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report

Jackson Lewis P.C.

44 South Broadway, 14th floor
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 872-8060
Fax: (914) 946-1216
RSS Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

About Jackson Lewis

Jackson Lewis P.C. is a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. Named the “Innovative Law Firm of the Year” by the International Legal Technology Association, the firm’s commitment to client service and depth of expertise draws clients to Jackson Lewis for excellent value-driven legal advice.

Copyright © 2022, Jackson Lewis P.C. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo