DC Circuit -- Jamal Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan

As the modification to an ERISA plan during the pendency of class certification for an action challenging the plan claimed that the prior arrangement was legal, the change did not make the suit moot, as the company's understanding of the relevant law apparently doesn't preclude further problems in this area.

Where there are three ways of a plan complying with the relevant statute, a court's order that it undertake one in particular is a fair exercise of equitable powers.

Beneficiaries' receipt of payments indicating an unfairly backloaded plan did not cause the claim to accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations where identifying the difference would require the application of complex law to complex facts.

Beneficiaries who participated in the plan prior to the administrator's making of a statement that proved noncompliance with the statute are also eligible for relief, if the scheme was essentially the same during their participation.

When imposing an equitable remedy, a court may hold that participants in an illicitly backloaded plan can mature out of the injury by accruing benefits during the later (inappropriately) lucrative payment periods.

Trial court did not abuse discretion in barring nonunion years of work from claim at class certification, as nonunion service was not itself inherently part of the claim.

Jamal Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan