Skip to main content

In re 2014 Radioshack ERISA Litigation

N.D. Tex.January 25, 2016No. Master File No. 4:14-cv-959-0Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Connor, Reed
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Texas

Related Laws

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

In an ERISA stock-drop class action against RadioShack fiduciaries over 401(k) Plan losses, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Statute of limitations defense was rejected, but some claims were dismissed.

What This Ruling Means

# RadioShack Retirement Plan Case Summary **What Happened** When RadioShack filed for bankruptcy in 2014, former employees questioned whether company leaders properly managed their retirement savings plan. Workers alleged that RadioShack executives failed in their legal duty to protect retirement funds and didn't give employees accurate information about their benefits. **What the Court Decided** The court issued a mixed decision—some claims succeeded while others did not. The judge found merit in some of the employees' complaints but rejected others, meaning workers won on some points but lost on others. The court did not award monetary damages. **Why This Matters** This case highlights important protections for workers' retirement savings. Employers who manage retirement plans have a legal responsibility to act honestly and keep workers informed about their benefits. When companies face financial trouble, they cannot simply ignore these obligations. Though this case produced mixed results, it reinforces that workers can challenge their employers in court if they believe retirement plans were mishandled during corporate crises.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Gentile-Riaz
Conn. App. Ct.Dec 2025

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by the defendant L, submitted a complaint to the local health district reporting unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. The day after a health inspector visited the restaurant and disclosed that the plaintiff had made the complaint, the defendants terminated her employment. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the Department of Labor, as required by § 31-51m (c). Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's action focused on her employer's con- duct in terminating her employment following her complaint to the health district, the substance of which related to public health, not occupational safety or health. Argued September 9—officially released December 16, 2025

Remanded
Vaughn
E.D. Wis.Sep 2025
Dismissed
Johnson v. Cincy Automall, Inc.
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2024

A plaintiff-employee states a valid claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where she claims that she was an at-will employee and was fired for filing a good-faith complaint with her employer and with OSHA concerning COVID-19 hazards and a mice infestation in her workplace. In a disparate treatment sex discrimination case, a defendant-employer fails to satisfy its initial burden for summary judgment to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the similarly situated element of the plaintiff-employee's prima facie case where the defendant relies on conclusory assertions that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that she was treated differently than similarly situated male employees. WITH CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION.

Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.