ERISA Litigation Reform Act Advances to House Floor

Brian Anderson

2 hours ago

The ERISA Litigation Reform Act (H.R. 6084) advanced out of committee Tuesday on a party line vote of 19-13, with Republican members of the House Committee on Education and Workforce supporting the legislation while committee Democrats opposed it.

The bill now heads to the House floor, where it will be scheduled for floor debate, amendment, and a final vote that could send it on to the Senate.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) introduced the bill back in November. It seeks to amend ERISA to “clarify the burden of proof in certain fiduciary-related claims and establish a targeted stay of discovery during early stages of litigation,” to safeguard a “predictable, fair, and efficient legal framework,” for retirement plan fiduciaries, employers, and participants.

• EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of our Q1 2026 “How Not to Get Sued” Deep Dive. All published coverage to date can be found here.

Fine and Committee Chair Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) spoke in favor of the bill during Tuesday’s markup session while a handful of Democrats including Ranking Member Robert Scott (D-VA) spoke out against it.

Walberg said the “common-sense bill” takes a balanced approach to litigation reform and works hand-in-hand with courts’ efforts to curb abusive lawsuits. Over the last 10 years, he said frivolous class action lawsuits against employer-sponsored benefit plans governed by ERISA have grown, draining time and resources.

“These lawsuits make it harder and more expensive for employers to provide voluntary benefits, ultimately harming the workers and retirees ERISA was meant to protect,” Walberg said. “This legislation preserves the ability to bring legitimate claims while screening out frivolous class actions. Too often, trial lawyers exploit ERISA to extract massive settlements, regardless of merit. Unscrupulous lawyers know that settling is often cheaper than litigating, even when the claims lack merit. This creates an opportunity for class action lawsuits to exploit employers who wish to provide benefits to workers. Workers, employers, and retirees all lose out as legal fees soar as plan resources are drained. ERISA was designed to protect retirement savings—not to bankroll a business model of opportunistic lawsuits. Simply put, without these important reforms, employees will continue to bleed as lawyers continue to feed.”

Scott, former DOL officials voice opposition

Rep. Scott countered that under the ERISA, workers have a legal right to bring claims in federal court, allowing workers the ability to fight back against being charged excessive fees that reduce their retirement savings.

“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that plan participants need to only allege that a violation of ERISA’s rules occurred to pursue their case,” Scott said. “This bill would overturn that unanimous Supreme Court decision and impose additional burdens on workers when seeking to enforce their rights in court. In particular, this bill unfairly delays workers’ ability to recover losses by placing a hold on discovery until motions to dismiss have been decided. Committee Republicans are advancing legislation that weakens retirement savers’ right to seek justice when harmed, while at the same time, the Trump Administration seems poised to encourage retirement plans to include risky assets, such as cryptocurrency, in 401(k) plans.”

Scott also took issue with Republicans’ assertion that frivolous ERISA lawsuits have spiked in recent years, claiming there is “no evidence of a widespread litigation problem.”

During the markup, Democrats offered an amendment to exempt health plans from the bill, but it failed on a party line vote.

Scott also introduced into the record two letters arguing against the legislation—one from several former Department of Labor officials who worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, and another from organizations including the Alliance of Retired Americans, Americans for Financial Reform, Committee for a Fiduciary Standard, Economic Policy Institute, National Committee to Protect and Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Retiree Legislative Network, and Pension Rights Center.

The former Labor Department officials—including former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi and former Acting Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security Ali Khawar—wrote that they oppose the ERISA Litigation Reform Act because it could limit participants’ ability to challenge ERISA violations in court. They argue the bill would make it harder for plaintiffs to bring cases by requiring access to information they typically cannot obtain, such as internal fiduciary decision-making details. With reduced enforcement resources at the DOL, they say the legislation could weaken oversight and increase the risk of plan mismanagement and self-dealing.

The current Department of Labor leadership has not yet commented specifically on the bill, but based on Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Daniel Aronowitz being an outspoken critic of frivolous ERISA class action litigation, there’s little question EBSA supports the legislation.

Supporters of H.R. 6084

A number of prominent retirement industry organizations have already expressed support for the ERISA Litigation Reform Act.

“ARA has long warned that abusive ERISA litigation undermines the private retirement system by shifting hard-earned dollars from workers’ retirement accounts into plaintiffs’ attorneys’ pockets. Representative Fine’s bill helps advance this important conversation, and we stand ready to work with him and others to shape pragmatic, bipartisan solutions that restore retirement fairness without weakening participant protections,” said American Retirement Association CEO Brian Graff in an article on an ARA website.

“The mere threat of litigation can lead plan sponsors and service providers to shy away from newer, innovative retirement investment products and services that may improve participant outcomes.”
ICI’s Eric J. Pan and Tom Quaadman

The Investment Company Institute submitted a letter of support for the bill to Rep. Fine back in December, saying it would be an important step forward to reining in often meritless litigation which threatens the success of our nation’s voluntary employer-sponsored retirement system that provides a key source of retirement income for millions of Americans.

“The specter of litigation is one of the biggest challenges faced by employers who offer retirement savings plans to their employees. The mere threat of litigation can lead plan sponsors and service providers to shy away from newer, innovative retirement investment products and services that may improve participant outcomes. These lawsuits, and the expense and uncertainty they create for plan sponsors, threaten the very existence of the voluntary employer-sponsored retirement system and harm the plan beneficiaries ERISA is designed to protect,” wrote ICI President & CEO Eric J. Pan and Chief of Government Affairs and Public Policy Tom Quaadman.

The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) issued a statement Tuesday following the Education and Workforce Committee’s action to advance the ERISA Litigation Reform Act.

“Retirement plan sponsors are under attack. One recent analysis highlights that more than one-half of plans with more than $1 billion in assets have faced at least one excessive fee or investment performance lawsuit. Similarly, plans with $500 million or more in assets have nearly a 10% chance of being sued in a given year,” said ERIC’s Andy Banducci, Senior Vice President of Retirement and Compensation Policy.

He added that the bill advances two much-needed reforms. First, a plaintiff alleging that a contract between a plan and a plan service provider constitutes a prohibited transaction under ERISA must specifically explain why the arrangement does not meet the statutory exemption as a necessary and reasonable service-provider arrangement. Second, it would pause the discovery process while motions to dismiss are pending.

“ERIC applauds the House Education and Workforce Committee for advancing this legislation because it restores balance without preventing plaintiffs from advancing meritorious claims,” Banducci said.