New Litigation: Connecting the Dots

Jamie Greenleaf

Plaintiffs’ law firm Schlichter Bogard LLC, just before Christmas, filed a batch of four complaints, alleging in nearly identical claims that four employers breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The defendant employers include companies most will recognize—United Airlines, CHS/Community Health Systems, Universal Services of America and Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings.

Let’s take a closer look at what many would recognize as a classic Schlichter “batch filing.”

Notably, the complaints also name the employers’ benefits consultants—Gallagher Benefit Services Inc.; Mercer Health and Benefits Administration LLC; Lockton Companies LLC; and Willis Towers Watson US LLC, alleging self-dealing and conflicts of interest at the expense of plan participants.

When I speak with employers about the impact of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 on health plan fiduciaries, I often start with familiar ground: the fiduciary process they already apply to their retirement plans and why that same mindset must now be applied to health care plans. The CAA strengthened disclosure requirements precisely to help fiduciaries assess whether compensation paid to brokers and consultants is reasonable. Under the CAA, service providers to ERISA-covered health plans that expect to receive at least $1,000 in direct or indirect compensation must disclose that compensation, in writing, to the plan sponsor or employer. The CAA disclosures only apply to ERISA-covered group health plans, including medical, dental and vision, and do not apply to voluntary benefits.

Disclosure of compensation paid on medical, vision and dental business is not enough. Employers should be asking for total compensation paid to a covered service provider, regardless of which product or line of business it comes from. Employers instinctively understand this, because they have seen this movie before.

In the early days of 403(b) plans (and some 401(k) plans), advisers often sat in lunchrooms enrolling employees. On the surface, it looked like education for plan participants. In reality, many of those advisers were compensated primarily through selling additional benefits to those participants, including annuities, life insurance and other financial products. Employers eventually figured this out. So did the plaintiffs’ bar.

Fast forward to today. In the retirement industry, courts and settlements have made one thing clear: Access to plan participants is not a license to cross-sell. Conflicts matter, even when participants technically “opt in.”

Now look at the health care ecosystem. Industry research (such as that done by Eastbridge Consulting) shows the voluntary benefits market has continued to grow for several years, with both sales and in-force premiums collected hitting record highs and brokers increasingly leaning into selling voluntary benefits as part of their offerings. A July 2025 Eastbridge report found that 51% of brokers said voluntary products generate more than half of their sales revenue.

Plaintiffs’ law firms are connecting the dots between incentives, misuse of plan access and conflicted advice. Voluntary benefits products are becoming a meaningful part of the benefits landscape, and more brokers are embedding them into their sales strategies.

Voluntary benefits themselves are not the problem—the incentives are.

When a salesperson is paid more to sell one product than another, that compensation structure can influence recommendations, education and access to employees. This is not about accusing bad actors. It is about following the money and understanding motivations.

Employers should be asking broader, more fundamental questions:

• Why is this person talking to my employees?
• How are they compensated, directly and indirectly?
• What products financially benefit them?
• Are there conflicts that need to be disclosed, mitigated or avoided?

The lesson from the retirement industry is clear: Fiduciary risk is not managed through good intentions. It is managed through process, transparency and documentation.

Health care has reached that same inflection point.

The takeaway for employers is simple, but powerful:

• Access to your employees has value;
• Incentives shape behavior; and
• Process and documentation matter.

Even if litigation has not reached your exact scenario yet, employers should treat any recommendation, product access or employee interaction as an area requiring thoughtful, documented fiduciary oversight—especially when employees are making decisions influenced by those recommendations.

History may not repeat itself—but it certainly rhymes.

Jamie Greenleaf is a fiduciary consultant and co-founder of Fiduciary In A Box.

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of ISS STOXX or its affiliates.