Paychex, Inc. has enhanced its 401(k) participant dashboard, expanding retirement plan access, understanding and investment management through a series of new features.
A simplified enrollment process. In as a few as four clicks, participants can immediately enroll in a plan from their phone, tablet, or desktop device.
Tools to better understand contribution impact. Participants can see how their savings today translate into monthly income during their retirement years.
Expanded plan accessibility. With the ability to enroll, view, and change 401(k) options from any device, participants have greater plan access. Users can also easily switch the dashboard from English to Spanish with a click of a button.
Opportunities to maximize retirement savings. Participants can make the most of their retirement savings potential with the ability to set automatic contribution increases.
Convenient investment management. Through a simplified investment review and selection process, investments can easily be monitored and adjusted by the participant as they see fit.
“In response to gaps in retirement readiness, Paychex is continually investing in tools to increase 401(k) participation,” says Paul Davidson, director of product management at Paychex. “Our new participant dashboard makes the process of enrolling in a 401(k) simpler than ever before, and as a result, we’re already seeing increased participation rates. The enhanced dashboard provides a unique combination of tools and resources that empower participants to begin the process of confidently preparing for retirement.”
Plaintiffs in Chevron Case Ask Supreme Court to Review ERISA Pleading Standards
Participants in Chevron’s DC plan say the 9th Circuit applied unnecessarily high pleading standards, “precluding petitioners from pursuing claims that have been recognized as sufficiently plead in other circuits.”
The plaintiffs in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit against Chevron Corporation and its defined contribution (DC) plan committee have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Specifically, the petition for writ of certiorari asks the Supreme Court to answer the question: “In pleading a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, is it sufficient for a plaintiff to allege a deficient decision-making process indirectly through inferences from the facts known to her?”
The lawsuit alleges that Chevron and its DC plan committee breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by, among other things, offering a money market fund rather than a stable value fund as a capital preservation option and paying excessive administrative fees. Agreeing with a federal district court that the plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to support a plausible claim, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December said the complaint must allege “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” and where there are “two possible explanations, only one of which can be true and only one of which results in liability, plaintiff cannot offer allegations that are ‘merely consistent with’ [its] favored explanation but are also consistent with the alternative explanation.”
The petitioners—participants in Chevron’s DC plan—say the 9th Circuit applied unnecessarily high pleading standards, “precluding petitioners from pursuing claims that have been recognized as sufficiently plead in other circuits.” They note that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Braden v. Wal-Mart Storesrecognized that ERISA plan participants do not have access to the details of how their fiduciaries discharged their duties and thus cannot plead directly how the fiduciaries’ decision-making process was deficient. “The Eighth Circuit recognized that requiring a participant to plead facts that tend systemically to be in the sole possession of the defendant-fiduciaries would undermine ERISA’s remedial scheme of enforcement through participant-led actions. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit established that an ERISA plan participant can state claim of breach by pleading facts that show only indirectly that it is plausible the fiduciary acted imprudently,” the petition says.
The petitioners note that is a standard that has been accepted in the 2nd, 5th, and 7th Circuits, and that even the 9th Circuit has agreed with the principles underlying Braden. “Petitioners’ allegations would survive dismissal under the Braden standard, as many district courts have concluded when considering complaints far less detailed than the complaint in this case,” the petition suggests.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit say the Supreme Court should grant their petition because “The standard by which a participant can plead a claim of breach of ERISA’s fiduciary duties is an issue of national importance because of the national scope of the statute and because the Secretary of Labor opposes heightened pleading requirements for such actions.”