Hanigan v. Bechtel Global Corporation
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- 791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- motion to dismiss
- State
- Virginia
- Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleging breach of ERISA fiduciary duties for selecting a managed account as the qualified default investment alternative instead of a target-date fund. The court found the plaintiff failed to allege a meaningful benchmark for the excessive fee claim and did not adequately plead a breach of the duty of prudence or duty to monitor.
What This Ruling Means
Hanigan v. Bechtel Global Corporation
What Happened
An employee sued Bechtel Global Corporation over the company's retirement plan choices. The worker claimed that Bechtel chose the wrong type of investment option as the plan's default—specifically, a managed account instead of a target-date fund. The employee believed this choice resulted in excessive fees.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with Bechtel and dismissed the case. The judge found that the employee failed to provide sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Specifically, the employee didn't clearly show how much the fees were compared to similar investments, and didn't adequately prove that Bechtel failed its legal duty to manage the retirement plan carefully or monitor it properly.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling sets a high bar for employees challenging retirement plan investment choices. Workers must gather detailed information and data to prove companies mismanaged their plans. If you believe your employer's retirement plan has excessive fees or poor investment options, you'll need strong, specific evidence before filing a lawsuit—simply showing the investment type might not be enough.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.