Sulyma, the key issue is what actions constitute 'actual' knowledge and trigger the three-year limit. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case 'is a good sign for employers and the fiduciaries who are responsible for their benefit plans,' said Emily Seymour Costin, an attorney with Alston & Bird in Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the employee, but other courts have sided with employers on the issue. So was receiving the information enough to trigger the three-year limit, or did the employee actually have to read it? The 9th U.S. But the employee argued that his claim is timely because he doesn't recall reading any of the investment information until just before he filed his lawsuit. Intel's retirement committee argued that the employee's lawsuit is barred because he received all the relevant plan investment information more than three years before he filed the complaint.

Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall about whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA's) three-year limitation periodВ applies to the employee'sВ claims.Д®RISA states that the three-yearВ limitation period runs from 'the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation.' Otherwise, if the employee didn't have 'actual knowledge' of the alleged breach,В a six-year limitation period applies. A former Intel employee wants to sue the tech company's retirement plan committee for allegedly breaching fiduciary duties by making poor investments-but the committee says he waited too long to file the lawsuit.

Dillards employee handbook