Hughes v. Northwestern Uni v.

Northwestern University employees said their retirement plans charged unnecessarily high recordkeeping fees and offered higher-cost investment options. The Court decided that the employees' allegations stated plausible claims that plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence under ERISA.

The Court concluded that the employees stated plausible claims; no vote count or opinion lineup is specified.

The decision lets workers challenge allegedly excessive retirement-plan costs even when a plan also offers some cheaper choices. It matters to employees whose workplace retirement savings may be reduced by fees.

The Supreme Court has finished its action in this case. The parties must follow the Court's decision in any further proceedings.

The Court said the employees made plausible claims that plan fiduciaries failed to act prudently by allowing excessive retirement-plan fees and costs.

Workers in employer retirement plans may be affected when their plans charge high service fees or offer more expensive investment options.

The Supreme Court has completed its action. The parties must follow its decision in any further proceedings.