McWashington et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- Home
- Retail Litigation Center
- McWashington et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc.
Date: January 22, 2026
RLC’s Position: The RLC brief explains that: (1) a plan’s reallocation of forfeited employer contributions to future contributions for other plan participants instead of to plan expenses does not violate ERISA’s duties of loyalty or prudence; and (2) for a plaintiff to state a claim for excessive fees under the plan, he or she must identify comparator plans that are similar in terms of either size or services offered.
Coalition: The RLC was joined by the National Retail Federation, the American Benefits Council, and the Erisa Industry Committee.
Counsel: Jordan Bock and Jaime Santos of Goodwin Proctor drafted the brief.
RLC’s Position: The RLC brief explains that: (1) a plan’s reallocation of forfeited employer contributions to future contributions for other plan participants instead of to plan expenses does not violate ERISA’s duties of loyalty or prudence; and (2) for a plaintiff to state a claim for excessive fees under the plan, he or she must identify comparator plans that are similar in terms of either size or services offered.
Coalition: The RLC was joined by the National Retail Federation, the American Benefits Council, and the Erisa Industry Committee.
Counsel: Jordan Bock and Jaime Santos of Goodwin Proctor drafted the brief.