Dealing with Stress, Burnout in the HR, Benefits Department

With fatigue and exhaustion on the rise among HR leaders, plan sponsors are tasked with managing the stresses that their benefits teams face while also prioritizing the needs of their participants.

As staff members in the HR and benefits department often wear multiple hats, from overseeing an organization’s retirement plan to managing a company’s health care benefits, it is easy for these workers to feel overwhelmed, stressed and burnt out at times. 

For plan sponsors, who are often in charge of leading these teams, it is important to be aware of the challenges that HR and benefits staff members face daily and not blur the line of fiduciary responsibility with these employees. 

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

According to a recent survey conducted by HR Executive, called “What’s Keeping HR Up at Night?” 76% of more than 350 HR leaders surveyed said their stress increased in 2023—including a quarter who said the increase was dramatic.  

When asked what was driving this stress, the expectation to “do more with less” was a common stressor, as many HR leaders cited dealing with a heavier workload with no increase in staffing or few resources.  

Rachel Huber Christman

Rachel Huber Christman, director of total rewards at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, leads the nonprofit’s benefits, compensation and HR software teams. While her teams have grown over the years, Christman says the benefits team is on the smaller side, given the size of the nonprofit.

Up until 2019, Christman says the benefits department was all paper-based, so enrollments were done on paper and people had to come in and fill out paperwork. Moving to online enrollment has helped with efficiency and taken some of the administrative burden off her staff, Christman says. 

“I try to make sure that my team [is not] pushing work-life balance in the way of PTO time,” Christman says. “Obviously if you can plan for it, that’s even better … When you’re at home, be at home, don’t be thinking about work. One of my senior [colleagues] on compensation often says, ‘Yes, what we do is important—we impact people’s paychecks and their lives with retirement and benefits, but we’re not brain surgeons.’” 

Christman emphasizes that being on the benefits team requires staff members to be proactive and take the time to meet with employees and explain the organization’s benefits, instead of just waiting for employees to come to HR with questions. To avoid staff members feeling burnt out, if she notices that some members of her team have not taken time off in a while, Christman encourages them to do so to recharge.  

In addition, Christman says it is important for team members to be detail-oriented and remain alert while on the job. 

“If you enter a Social Security number wrong or if you don’t understand all the nuances of plan design, it can get us into trouble quickly,” Christman says. “Being very detail-oriented is probably one of the biggest things I like to see in [job candidates].” 

As a plan sponsor, Christman adds that she is careful about not blurring the line of fiduciary responsibility with her team members.  

“I don’t want fiduciary liability to fall on any of my people,” Christman says. “As far as making fiduciary decisions, I try very hard, especially at the administrator level, to not blur that line … If you are considered a fiduciary, you can be personally held liable … and I wouldn’t want my lower-level [employees] to shoulder any of that burden.” 

According to T. Rowe Price’s “Fiduciary Guide,” it is advisable that specific fiduciary responsibilities are clearly described in the appointing resolutions and in the plan document. If there is confusion about who is responsible for what, T. Rowe advises plan sponsors to review plan documents, committee charters, resolutions and other plan governance documents, and to develop a comprehensive list of all plan management and administrative activities that distinguishes fiduciary from non-fiduciary activities.

The Fiduciary Guide laid out some examples of non-fiduciary activities, which include preparing employee communications, calculating benefits, processing claims for benefits, and educating participants about their rights and responsibilities under the plan.
 

Appeals Court Revives Pension Case Against Northrop Grumman

For a second time, the 9th Circuit has resurrected a lawsuit that targeted the aerospace and defense company.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has revived a proposed class action lawsuit, accusing Northrop Grumman of misinforming pension participants about their benefits.

The appeals court on Thursday overruled a California federal court’s dismissal of the case and returned it to the district court level.  

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

The three-judge appellate court panel reversed and remanded decisions made in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The appeals court decided earlier district court rulings were wrong and that the retirees who brought the case had adequately alleged that they had received inaccurate benefit statements.  

The retirees, “adequately alleged facts that, if proved, triggered the duty to provide pension benefit statements, and … stated a viable ERISA claim by alleging that the plan administrator provided substantially inaccurate pension benefit statements,” wrote Judge Morgan Christen, in the court of appeals opinion.

The court of appeals denied the argument presented by Northrop Grumman’s administrative committee—designated administrator of the pension plan—claiming there were no remedies available for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations alleged by plaintiffs Stephen and Laura Bafford and Evelyn Wilson.  

However, Christen wrote for the appeals court that the law’s text, “broadly permits the imposition of penalties,” for failing to meet certain requirements.

Wilson and Steven Bafford were participants with vested retirement balances in the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan who started to accrue retirement assets upon their employment at the Grumman Corporation in the 1980s. Laura Bafford is Stephen Bafford’s wife and the beneficiary of his pension under the plan.

Wilson retired in 2014 and Bafford in 2016.

This is the second time the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals has resurrected the case.

The initial lawsuit was filed in 2018. The proposed class action lawsuit claimed Northrop Grumman and Hewitt Associates LLC, which is now known as Alight Solutions breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Alight was dismissed from the case in 2022 and was not involved in the appeal.

In the original complaint, accusers claimed they never received pension benefit statements or notices informing them how they could obtain such statements, and also alleged they received inaccurate statements of their retirement benefits in response to their written requests, explains Christen, in the recent appeal’s court opinion. 

The complaint alleged Alight breached their fiduciary duty by sending to plan participants inaccurate estimates of worker’s pension benefits, and targeted the Northrop Grumman administrative committee for the plan, accusing it of ERISA breach by not adequately monitoring Alight.

In 2019, the district court granted the plan committee’s motion to dismiss. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complainants fiduciary duty claim, reversed dismissal of state law claims, vacated dismissal of the ERISA disclosure claims and remanded with instructions to allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

On return to the district court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint realleging their state-law claims and their claims against the committee for violations of ERISA’s disclosure provision.

Following the refiling, the district court narrowed the complainant’s allegations, dismissing one of the claims with prejudice. The court dismissed the accuser’s other claims with leave to amend, wrote Christen.

When the complainants filed a third amended complaint the court ordered them to file an amended complaint removing previously rejected allegations. The court ultimately “struck,” their fourth amended complaint because it continued to allege that plaintiffs received inaccurate pension benefit statements and because plaintiffs’ allegations were overbroad, Christen wrote.

Instead of filing another amended complaint, plaintiffs requested entry of final judgment and filed this appeal, according to Christen. The appeal was argued and submitted October 17, 2023.

The case is Stephen Bafford et al. v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan et al.

U.S. Circuit Judges Christen, Roopali H. Desai and Anthony D. Johnstone made up the panel for the 9th Circuit.

Northrop Grumman is represented by attorneys with the law firm Mayer Brown LLP. The retirees are represented by attorneys with the law offices of Kantor & Kantor LLP and Renaker Scott LLP.

Neither representatives of lawyers for the plaintiffs nor Northrop Grumman responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit.

«