TANIKA PARKER and ANDREW FARRIER, individually and on behalf of the DRiV 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated v. TENNECO, INC.; DRIV AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY, INC.; TENNECO BENEFITS COMMITTEE; FEDERAL- MOGUL CORPORATION; FEDERAL-MOGUL, LLC; FEDERAL-MOGUL POWERTRAIN, LLC; TENNECO BENEFITS & PENSION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE - Articles

All Content

TANIKA PARKER and ANDREW FARRIER, individually and on behalf of the DRiV 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated v. TENNECO, INC.; DRIV AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY, INC.; TENNECO BENEFITS COMMITTEE; FEDERAL- MOGUL CORPORATION; FEDERAL-MOGUL, LLC; FEDERAL-MOGUL POWERTRAIN, LLC; TENNECO BENEFITS & PENSION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 20, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Todd D. Wozniak, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Sarah M. Karchunas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Todd D. Wozniak, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Lindsey R. Camp, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Scott C. Nehrbass, Boyd A. Byers, FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP, Overland Park, Kansas, E. Powell Miller, Sharon S. Almonrode, Mitchell J. Kendrick, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Sarah M. Karchunas, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Tanika Parker and Andrew Farrier, employees of subsidiaries of Tenneco Inc., each participated in 401(k) plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Both plans (together, the “Plans”) had been amended to include mandatory individual arbitration provisions. These provisions required plan participants to bring suit in arbitration only in an individual capacity, not in a representative, class, or collective capacity, and to seek remedies only for losses to the participant’s individual plan account, not for monetary benefits that would accrue to any other participant’s account. These provisions explicitly applied to actions under ERISA § 502(a)(2) for relief under ERISA § 409(a). Parker and Farrier alleged that the fiduciaries of their Plans (the “Fiduciaries”) breached their fiduciary duties and sued under § 502(a)(2) on behalf of their Plans for all losses accruing to the Plans, disgorgement of all profits, and other injunctive remedies under § 409(a). The Fiduciaries moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the individual arbitration provisions blocked such a representative suit for plan-wide monetary remedies. The question for this court is whether the individual arbitration provisions are invalid as a prospective waiver of statutorily guaranteed rights and remedies. We hold that they are and affirm the judgment of the district court.

Attachments: