ERISA Venue Provisions: Where Can You File Your Benefits Lawsuit?

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs private sector employee benefits plans, including retirement, disability, and health plans. Venue is a key aspect of ERISA litigation. It determines where participants can file lawsuits when they believe someone has violated their plan rights. Plan participants and fiduciaries must understand ERISA’s venue provisions and their interaction with other legal principles, including forum-selection clauses.

In this article, we will discuss ERISA’s venue rules, relevant statutory provisions, and the impact of forum-selection clauses on where participants can file suit.

ERISA’s Statutory Venue Provision: Three Filing Options

ERISA has a specific venue provision that governs where lawsuits involving employee benefit plans can be filed. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), plaintiffs can bring an ERISA-related lawsuit in:

1. The district where the plan is administered,
2. The district where the alleged breach took place, or
3. The district where the defendant resides or may be found.

This broad venue provision gives plaintiffs multiple options for where to file suit. Participants and beneficiaries gain flexibility to choose locations that offer convenience or strategic advantages.

Here’s a closer look at the options provided by this provision:

• Where the plan is administered: The district where a third-party administrator manages the plan may also serve as a proper venue. When a third-party administrator manages the plan, that entity’s district may also serve as a proper venue.
• Where the alleged breach took place: This often means the participant’s home district. This applies especially when the breach involves benefit denials or fund mismanagement affecting the individual locally.
• Where the defendant resides or may be found: This allows plaintiffs to sue in the home district of any defendant involved in the alleged breach, including plan sponsors and fiduciaries.

This venue provision offers flexibility that proves critical in complex ERISA litigation with multiple parties or claims.

Federal Venue Rules and How They Interact with ERISA

ERISA’s venue provision is specific to ERISA-related litigation, but it also intersects with the general federal venue statute, found in 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This statute provides general guidelines for filing civil actions in federal court when cases involve “federal question” jurisdiction rather than diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action can be filed in:

1. A district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state,
2. A district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or
3. If no district can satisfy (1) or (2), then any district where any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The options under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) often overlap with ERISA’s specific venue provision. This overlap gives plaintiffs multiple filing choices. However, ERISA’s venue rules offer more specificity and give plan participants additional leeway. For example, participants can file suit where someone administers the plan, even if this differs from the defendant’s residence or the breach location.

ERISA Forum-Selection Clauses

A significant development in ERISA litigation is the increased use of forum-selection clauses in plan documents. These clauses specify the court or venue where parties must bring disputes involving the plan. ERISA’s statutory venue provision offers breadth. However, forum-selection clauses can limit where participants may file by requiring a specific court or location to hear the case.

Courts now almost universally agree that forum-selection clauses in ERISA cases remain enforceable, despite earlier debates about their validity. See, e.g., Becker v. United States Dist. Court, 993 F.3d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 2021); In re Mathias, 867 F.3d 727, 732 (7th Cir. 2017); Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan, 769 F.3d 922, 932 (6th Cir. 2014). These cases align with the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013). This ruling established that federal courts generally enforce forum-selection clauses unless strong public policy dictates otherwise.

In the ERISA context, courts have reasoned that ERISA’s venue clause uses permissive language (“an action . . . may be brought”), rather than mandatory language. Therefore, ERISA plan administrators may choose any of the three permitted venues in their forum-selection clause. They typically select where they administer the plan. If a plan chooses a different forum that bears no relationship to the plan administrator’s location or case facts, courts would likely find that forum-selection clause invalid.

Factors Influencing Venue Selection in ERISA Cases

Given the options available under ERISA’s statutory venue provision, as well as the potential for forum-selection clauses, participants and beneficiaries need to carefully consider where to file suit. Several factors can influence this decision:

1. Convenience: A plaintiff may choose to file suit in a venue that is geographically convenient. For instance, filing in the district where they reside may minimize travel and logistical burdens during litigation.
2. Judicial Precedents: Different circuits may have varying interpretations of ERISA-related issues, such as the standard of review for benefit denials or fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs may prefer to file in a venue where the law is more favorable to their position.
3. Availability of Evidence: Filing in a venue where key witnesses or evidence are located may be advantageous. For example, if a plan administrator or fiduciary is located in a particular district, litigating there may simplify the discovery process.
4. Forum-Selection Clauses: If the plan document contains a forum-selection clause, participants should carefully evaluate its enforceability and whether they want to challenge the clause in court.

Conclusion: Navigating ERISA Venue Decisions

ERISA’s venue provision, outlined in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), provides plan participants and beneficiaries with multiple options for filing suit. Plaintiffs can file where the plan is administered, where the breach occurred, or where the defendant resides or may be found. Additionally, ERISA venue rules intersect with the general venue rules for federal litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, giving plaintiffs further flexibility.

However, the growing use of forum-selection clauses in ERISA plan documents can limit this flexibility. While many courts have upheld these clauses, others have found them unenforceable when they conflict with ERISA’s goal of providing broad access to the courts.

When deciding where to file suit in an ERISA case, plaintiffs should consider the convenience of the venue, favorable judicial precedents, and the presence of forum-selection clauses in their plan documents. Participants who carefully weigh these factors can make informed decisions that boost their litigation success chances.

If you’re facing questions about where to file your ERISA lawsuit or dealing with a restrictive forum-selection clause, don’t navigate these complex jurisdictional issues alone. Contact DeBofsky Law for a consultation with our experienced ERISA attorneys who can help you determine the most advantageous venue for your case.