🗞️ Labor Department Backs Intel in Supreme Court Fight Over 401(k) Lawsuits

The U.S. Department of Labor has waded into one of the most consequential retirement policy cases of the year, filing a Supreme Court brief that backs Intel Corp. in a long running dispute over how the company invested employees' 401(k) savings. The case, Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, centers on whether Intel acted imprudently by steering retirement plan assets into hedge funds and private equity rather than more conventional stock and bond funds.

The underlying lawsuit, filed in 2019 by former Intel employee Winston Anderson, argues that these alternative investments underperformed traditional options and that Intel's fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. Both a federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the claims, finding that Anderson failed to identify a "meaningful benchmark," a comparable investment with similar goals and risk profile against which the challenged funds could fairly be judged. The Supreme Court agreed in January to review that standard, and oral arguments are expected during its upcoming term.

In its brief, the Labor Department argues that Intel diversified into alternative assets specifically to cushion employees' retirement savings against market downturns, and that the investment approach plaintiffs are advocating for would push plan sponsors toward riskier strategies chasing higher short term returns. The department's core legal argument is that ERISA is, in its words, "a law of process, not results." Simply pointing to weaker returns, the brief contends, does not by itself show that a fiduciary acted imprudently. Plaintiffs must instead compare the investment's performance to a benchmark with similar aims and strategy to plausibly state a claim.

The case has drawn national attention because it could resolve a split among federal appeals courts. The Ninth Circuit's benchmark requirement conflicts with a Sixth Circuit ruling in a separate case, Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Johnson, which held that ERISA imposes no such threshold pleading requirement. Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that a rigid benchmark rule is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's own precedent calling for a "context specific" review of fiduciary conduct, citing the Court's 2022 decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University. Business groups and plan sponsors counter that without a workable benchmark standard, companies face a wave of costly litigation any time an investment underperforms, regardless of whether the selection process itself was sound.

How the Court rules could reshape the broader landscape of retirement plan litigation, an area that has produced a steady stream of class action suits over fees and investment choices in recent years. A ruling favoring the benchmark requirement would give employers more room to defend novel or customized investment strategies. A ruling against it could make it easier for participants to bring fiduciary breach claims to trial.

Key Points

• The DOL filed an amicus brief supporting Intel and asking the Supreme Court to uphold dismissal of the Anderson lawsuit.
• The department argues ERISA claims based on underperformance require plaintiffs to identify a "meaningful benchmark" comparable investment.
• Intel's fiduciaries say the disputed hedge fund and private equity allocations were meant to reduce downside risk, not maximize returns.
• The case addresses a circuit split: the Ninth Circuit requires a benchmark; the Sixth Circuit, in a separate case, does not.
• A Supreme Court ruling is expected to significantly influence future ERISA fiduciary duty litigation nationwide.
• The DOL frames the brief as part of a broader effort to curb what it views as excessive litigation against retirement plan sponsors.

Primary Source Author: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration

Primary Source: US Department of Labor files amicus brief clarifying pleading standard for claims alleging imprudence in retirement plan investing

Primary Source Link: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20260710

Supplemental Links

• DOL Amicus Brief in Anderson v. Intel (PDF)
• SCOTUSblog Case File: Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee
• Congressional Research Service: Supreme Court to Examine ERISA Pleading Standards
• DLA Piper: Supreme Court to Decide ERISA 401(k) Pleading Standard
• Sidley Austin: Implications for ERISA "Excessive Fee" Litigation
• Ninth Circuit Opinion (May 22, 2025)