Fiduciary Principles in Employment Law

Author(s):  
Aditi Bagchi

Employees are agents of their employers, and in some cases, are in a position to undermine the interests of their employers in ways that the employers cannot fully anticipate or contractually protect themselves against. While most jurisdictions historically treated all employees as fiduciaries of their employers, by now only a minority of jurisdictions regards all employees as fiduciaries. Most states treat only high-level employees of “trust and confidence” as fiduciaries, while other employees owe a lesser duty of loyalty. Some scholars have made arguments in support of recognizing employers as fiduciaries to employees, but as yet, employers owe neither fiduciary duties nor any lesser duty of loyalty to employees. Only employer-related entities such as pension funds and employee stock option programs owe fiduciary duties to employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The doctrinal status and conceptual basis for the fiduciary duties of employees are discussed in Section I. Section II addresses fiduciary duties under ERISA. Section III touches on potential fiduciary duties of employers.

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-85
Author(s):  
Elaine T. Moore

As the shield preempting state suits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has been successfully pierced (see California Div. Of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr. N.A. Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) and Duke v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350 (3rd Cir. 1995)), plaintiff attorneys have begun to use the ERISA statute itself to further litigation against managed care organizations. The court in Shea v. Esensten, 107 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1997), held in a landmark decision that an HMO's failure to disclose financial incentives that discourage a treating physician from providing essential health care referrals for conditions covered under the plan benefit structure is a breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties.


1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 251-289
Author(s):  
Margaret G. Farrell

The result ERISA compels us to reach means that the Corcorans [who lost their unborn child allegedly as a result of United Healthcare’s negligent determination that hospitalization was not medically necessary] have no remedy, state or federal, for what may have been a serious mistake. This is troubling....In the words of its sponsor, Senator Jacob Javits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974 “to maintain the voluntary growth of private [pension and employee benefit] plans while at the same time making needed structural reforms in such areas as vesting, funding, termination, etc. so as to safeguard workers against loss of their earned or anticipated benefits....” Ironically, one of ERISA’s provisions—its indeterminate provision for the preemption of state law—has probably created more uncertainty about the adequacy and security of health care benefits than any other piece of legislation. Neither ERISA nor any other federal statute comprehensively regulates the content of employer provided health care plans, including benefits provided through managed care organizations (MCOs).


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Baker ◽  
Jonathan Gruber ◽  
Kevin Milligan

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 977-977
Author(s):  
J. Quinn ◽  
K. Cahill

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian E. Weller ◽  
Jeffrey B. Wenger ◽  
Elise Gould

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document