Recent fiduciary litigation clearly warns employer and other plan sponsors, plan committees and corporate officials, trustees and other service providers, and others involved in plan-related decision-making to ensure a well‑documented prudent fiduciary process for selecting and monitoring plan investments, selecting and overseeing service providers empowered to make or influence these decisions, and making other plan decisions.
The Employee, Retirement Income, Security Act (“ERISA”) requires “fiduciaries” to act prudently when making investment decisions, selecting and supervising parties to make investment decisions, or making any other fiduciary decision. See ERISA §404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(B).
Discount Tire Plan Litigation Illustrates Fiduciary Risks
The March 4, 2026 ruling in McGeathy v. Reinalt‑Thomas Corp., No. 2:25‑cv‑01439 (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2026), is the latest of a plethora of rulings highlighting the exposure of these and other parties with named or functional discretionary authority to make or select those responsible for making plan decisions risk from failing to recognize and appropriately manage their fiduciary status and responsibilities.
In McGeathy U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona refused to dismiss a fiduciary breach lawsuit alleging that the parent company of Discount Tire that sponsored the plan, various corporate officials and a trust company service provider were liable as plan fiduciaries for failing properly to monitor and replace underperforming target‑date funds in the company’s retirement plan.
The decision illustrates the willingness of courts to allow ERISA fiduciary claims to proceed against corporate plan sponsors and their officials or others who plaintiffs plausibly allege were fiduciaries and failed to follow a prudent process for reviewing investments or carrying out other discretionary decision-making. See ERISA §404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(B).
In McGeathy, a participant in the Discount Tire/America’s Tire Retirement Plan alleged that the defendants were plan fiduciaries and breached their duties under ERISA §404(a) by retaining a series of American Century target‑date funds that allegedly underperformed comparable funds for many years.
According to the complaint, the plan included approximately 16,000 participants and more than $1.2 billion in assets, with nearly 44% of plan assets invested in the challenged target‑date funds. The plaintiff alleges fiduciaries failed to prudently monitor and remove the investments despite long‑term underperformance relative to comparable funds.
The defendants argued that investment underperformance alone does not establish a fiduciary breach under ERISA. Some also disputed their fiduciary status relating to the challenged decisions.
The court rejected dismissal at the pleading stage, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged that the defendants were fiduciaries and as fiduciaries or co-fiduciaries may have failed to prudently monitor and replace the funds.
The court also allowed failure‑to‑monitor claims against company officials responsible for appointing and overseeing plan investment decision‑makers under the theory they acted as fiduciaries in selecting and retaining the trustee appointed to make those decisions for the plan. See ERISA §405(a), 29 U.S.C. §1105(a).
The courts ruling allows the case to proceed, requiring the plan sponsor, corporate officials, and trust company to continue to defend the case, pending a settlement or a determination on the facts. Regardless of how a case of merges, the litigation promises to be an expensive lesson, the outcome of which will depend on each defendant ability to demonstrate its prudence in the exercise of any discretion it possessed over the plan or it’s administration with regard to the disputed investments.
The Fiduciary Duty of Prudence
Under ERISA, the term “fiduciary” includes any person or entity that possesses named or functional discretionary authority over the administration or assets of a plan. ERISA §409. Since ERISA defines fiduciary status functionally, a party may not be a named fiduciary to bear fiduciary liability or responsibility. Consequently, many corporate officers and other parties often face fiduciary liability for their functional involvement and investment or other decisions regarding for the plan even though not official officially named as fiduciaries. A fiduciary generally is personally liable for breaches a fiduciary duties that it commits as well as liability as a co-fiduciary for fiduciary act or emissions of another fiduciary that the co-fiduciary through the exercise of prudence New, or should’ve known, was breaching its fiduciary duties and failed to appropriately act to protect the plan, including failure to monitor and manage a fiduciary that it appointed.
ERISA requires fiduciaries to act “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use.” ERISA §404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(B).
Courts consistently emphasize that ERISA liability focuses on the fiduciary process used to select and monitor investments, not simply on whether investments perform well or poorly.
The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Tibble v. Edison International, 575 U.S. 523 (2015), holding that ERISA fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments and remove imprudent ones within a reasonable time.
Other Recent Cases Reinforce Monitoring Duties
Recent ERISA litigation continues to demonstrate that plan fiduciaries they cannot produce the necessary evidence to show that they acted prudently risk significant personal liability.
In Collins v. Northeast Grocery, Inc., 87 F.4th 125 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit allowed fiduciary breach claims to proceed based on allegations that plan fiduciaries failed to prudently evaluate investment performance and fees relative to comparable alternatives.
Similarly, in Cunningham v. Cornell University, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court revived claims challenging allegedly excessive administrative and recordkeeping fees and clarified pleading standards applicable to ERISA fiduciary breach claims.
These decisions reflect continuing judicial scrutiny of fiduciary monitoring processes, benchmarking practices, and oversight of investment decisions and the selection, monitoring and management of plan sponsors and their corporate officers and other officials involved in the selection and retention of the service providers and pension investments or provide other services.
This liability often arises or is enhanced by the failure of individuals or entities possessing or exercising discretion over the plan’s assets or administration to appreciate their own fiduciary status and a resulting failure to use the necessary processes to prudently carry out these discretionary duties in a manner that captures the necessary evidence to defend the prudence of their actions.
Compliance Lessons for Plan Fiduciaries
Plan sponsors, fiduciary committees and corporate officers and directors with responsibility or involvement in managing plan, investments, or selection and management of the service providers or company officials responsible for management of investments should consider several risk‑reduction steps.
Plan an investment for other committees, trust companies, investment, advisory organizations, or individuals involved in the discretionary decision-making about the investment and management of plan assets should conduct their activities to create and maintain the necessary, documented evidence of their prudence in their oversight and management of the plans, investments and other activities. As part of these actions, for instance, they should:
• Maintain a structured investment monitoring process with periodic performance reviews.
• Adopt and consistently follow a written Investment Policy Statement.
• Benchmark investment performance and fees against appropriate peer funds.
• Document fiduciary committee meetings and deliberations.
• Monitor market or other conditions that could create a need for reconsideration of investment policies to meet market specific or other emerging conditions and document their decision-making.
Corporate Officers Be Liable as “Functional Fiduciaries” Even When Not Named in the Plan
Another important lesson from this modern ERISA fiduciary litigation is that corporate officers and others involved in making or appointing individuals or service providers to make plan investment or other decisions can become liable as fiduciaries even if not formally named as fiduciaries in plan documents.
ERISA defines fiduciary status based on functions performed, not titles held.
Under ERISA §3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A), a person becomes a fiduciary to the extent he or she exercises discretionary authority or control over plan management, exercises authority or control over plan assets, or provides investment advice for a fee.
Because of this functional fiduciary rule, courts frequently hold that corporate officers, executives, and investment committee members can be personally liable when they exercise discretionary authority over plan investments or the selection or retention of the parties to make those decisions.
In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, for instance, plan participants sued corporate officers responsible for administering the company’s retirement plan.
Participants alleged that corporate insiders knew the company’s stock was artificially inflated but continued allowing the plan to invest heavily in it. The Supreme Court held that corporate officers serving as plan administrators are subject to the same ERISA fiduciary duties as any other fiduciary, rejecting a special “presumption of prudence” for employer-stock investments.
The decision reinforced that officers who exercise discretionary control over plan investments can face fiduciary liability even when acting in dual corporate roles.
Also, in Donovan v. Bierwirth, the court held corporate officers responsible for managing a company pension plan liable for breach of fiduciary duty when they made investment decisions involving employer stock during a takeover battle.
The Second Circuit held that fiduciaries must act solely in the interests of plan participants and must take steps such as seeking independent advice when corporate conflicts arise.
The case remains one of the leading precedents establishing that corporate insiders who control plan investments can be personally liable under ERISA.
Likewise, federal courts have also imposed fiduciary liability on corporate insiders involved in employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) transactions.
For example, litigation brought by the U.S. Department of Labor against parties involved in ESOP stock transactions resulted in liability where insiders participated in transactions that caused the plan to pay inflated prices for employer stock. Courts held that individuals involved in the transaction could be jointly and severally liable as fiduciaries or knowing participants in prohibited transactions.
These cases demonstrate that ERISA liability can extend beyond named fiduciaries to individuals who exercise real control over investment decisions.
This functional fiduciary doctrine significantly expands potential liability exposure.
Corporate executives may become ERISA fiduciaries when they select or retain service providers or named plan fiduciaries, approve or influence plan investment menus, participate in investment committees, select or retain target-date funds or other plan investments or appoint or monitor plan fiduciaries or investment advisors or engage in of influence other plan decisions affecting plan assets or administration.
Even if plan documents designate a committee or outside fiduciary, individuals involved in decision-making may still face liability under ERISA’s co-fiduciary provisions if they knowingly participate in or fail to correct fiduciary breaches.
Acdditional Practical Compliance Lessons for Corporate Leadership
Corporate officers involved in retirement or other benefit plan oversight should take steps to manage their potential liability exposure. Among other things, these steps should include:
- Ensure plan documents and contracts provide a clear fiduciary governance structure that clearly identifies l who is responsible for plan investment and other decisions.
- Establish and prudently appoint an investment committe responsible for prudent investment of the plan investments;
- Require investment committee independence with prudent periodic monitoring and oversight;
- Investment Committees should meet regularly and prudently decide and review investment performance pursuant to prudent written investment policy.
- Ensure documented monitoring of plan investments.
- Maintain benchmarking reports, advisor analyses, and prudent fiduciary deliberations documentation;
- Periodically review of investment advisors Confirm that advisors are providing objective and appropriate recommendations;
- Train executives and committee members Ensure individuals understand when their activities may create fiduciary status and their responsibilities.
All parties should understand that ERISA fiduciary liability is determined by what individuals actually do, not by whether they are formally labeled fiduciaries.
Courts consistently hold that corporate officers who exercise discretionary authority over retirement plan investments may be treated as ERISA fiduciaries and held personally liable for imprudent investment decisions or failures to monitor plan investments.
Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans, and the officers and directors that serve on retirement committees, or in other capacities involved in the selection and retention of committees or service providers appointed to manage plan investments and other operations should recognize their selection authority generally will be considered fiduciary action for purposes of ERISA. Parties involved in these selection and oversight activities should conduct carefully documented processes to demonstrate their prudence in the selection and monitoring of the committee members or service providers that will be performing investment or other fiduciary functions for the plan. hiring processes should include carefully, documented, vetting processes that verify the credentials, performance, processes, fees and other compensation, and other relevant factors necessary to make these engagement of a particular entity or individual to carry out these investment functions prudent. Subsequently, procedure should be implemented and used to periodically monitor and review investment advisors and other service providers.
To meet express requirements of a risk of concerning the parties and trusted with fiduciary responsibilities, all involve parties should affirm that any individual or entity involved in the selection of plan, service providers, or investments, or otherwise performing fiduciary activities, or providing services to the plan are properly vetted for eligibility to serve under the ERISA rules, properly bonded, and otherwise have the credentials and performance history that justifies and trust of these responsibilities under the rules of prudence.
Documentation of fiduciary decision‑making is often critical in defending ERISA fiduciary breach claims. Courts frequently examine committee minutes, benchmarking reports, and advisor recommendations when evaluating whether fiduciaries followed a prudent process. processes of all involved parties should not only seek to exercise and verify prudent decision-making, but also captured the necessary evidence and documentation to defend their determination and actions in the event of a Department of Labor investigation or participant lawsuit.
Bottom Line
The Discount Tire and other similar decisions reaffirm a central principle of ERISA fiduciary law: liability often turns on the quality and documentation of the fiduciary process used to monitor plan investments or other decision-making regarding the plan, it’s service providers and investments, or other aspects of the establishment and administration of the plan.
Plan sponsors and fiduciaries should ensure they maintain a disciplined vendor credentialing, selection and contracting process; investment selection, performance and review process; and retain documentation demonstrating prudent oversight of plan investments and advisors.
Corporations should seek guidance and training from qualified employee benefits counsel as prudently required to understand and perform these responsibilities.
Also since lawsuits and other challenges can arise, despite the most diligent efforts to act prudently, all parties involved also gently should consider the advisability of securing fiduciary liability insurance coverage and appropriate contractional role designation and indemnification to help mitigate potential liability and cost arising from challenges that may arise out of the performance of investment or other related activities.
For More Information
We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.
Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.
About the Author
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Certification, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 35 years experience, advising plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others about fiduciary responsibility and other employee benefit plan design, administration, risk management and compliance. i
Ms. Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on health and other employee benefits, insurance, healthcare, workforce, HIPAA and other data and technology and other compliance in connection with her work with health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.
Ms. Stamer has more than 35 plus years of experience advising and representing, employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and administrators, their administrative services, technology and other business associates and other vendors, managed care and insurance, health care and other clients about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.
Ms. Stamer is nationally sought out for her decades of leading-edge experience in the design, sponsorship, administration, and defense of health, severance, savings retirement and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology, and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability, and advance other operational goals. This experience includes decades of work on ERISA, Internal Revenue Code and other related labor and employment, insurance, corporate and securities, data privacy and security, licensing and other laws. She also sought out for her extensive speaking and publications on these and related concerns.
Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations including current or previous service as Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member for the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section and Chair of its Welfare Plan, Fiduciary Responsibility and Plan Terminations Committees; Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee; Chair and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, Vice Chair of its Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees; and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management and Special Technologies Committees; ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) Council Representative and Scribe for its annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services; International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair; Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair; Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is valued and celebrated for her decades of policy advocacy and charitable, pro bono, community and other service and leadership to promote understanding and strengthening health care, workforce, saving, disability, aging and retirement and other key policies and challenges through her PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.
Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also often speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.
For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry, health and other benefits, workforce and other experience and involvements, see the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer P.C. website or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.
About Solutions Law Press™
Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.
NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could change the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.
Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.
©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. ™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.
slphrbenefitsupdate.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.