DOL Pulls Amicus Brief That Supported Plaintiffs in Yale 403(b) Case

The Department of Labor withdrew its support of plaintiffs who had filed a 403(b) retirement plan complaint against Yale University, informing the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that it has “reconsidered its position” on the issue of shifting legal burdens in cases governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to court filings, the DOL requested that the 2nd Circuit disregard a DOL’s December 2023 amicus brief in Vellali et al. v. Yale University et al., filed during former President Joe Biden’s administration. Instead, the DOL under President Donald Trump urged the court to adopt the position of its more recent amicus brief, filed in December 2025 in Pizarro v. The Home Depot Inc., regarding the burden of proof for loss causation in ERISA fiduciary breach claims.

In its Pizarro brief, the DOL stated: “Following the change in administration and this court’s invitation, the government has reviewed its position and determined that the relevant authorities are best interpreted as placing the burden of proving causation on ERISA plaintiffs.”

The DOL under Republican leadership has typically argued that ERISA plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, but under Democratic leadership, it has maintained that defendants hold that burden.

More on the Yale Case

In Vellali, originally filed in 2016, the plaintiffs alleged that Yale employees were charged excessive recordkeeping fees and that the university chose and retained underperforming investment funds within its retirement plan. The plaintiffs further argued that the use of multiple recordkeepers, rather than a single provider, resulted in duplicative and unreasonable costs for participants.

In a federal district court trial, a jury—rarely convened in these types of cases—found in 2023 that Yale breached its duty of prudence by allowing unreasonable recordkeeping and administrative fees, but determined that no damages resulted from this breach, largely handing the defendants a victory in the case.

The jury also found that Yale demonstrated that a prudent fiduciary could have made the same decisions as the university concerning recordkeeping and administrative fees.

Despite the ruling of no damages, Yale appealed the breach decision to the 2nd Circuit in August 2023. At the time, the Biden-era DOL contended in its December 2023 amicus brief that the jury instructions were flawed, as the court required defendants to show that a prudent fiduciary “could have” made similar choices, instead of the higher standard that a prudent fiduciary “would have” made those decisions.

The Trump-era DOL has shifted its stance, although the impact of that change on the 2nd Circuit’s decision is unclear.