Reported by Jamie Greenleaf
Just before Christmas, plaintiffs’ law firm Schlichter Bogard LLC filed four lawsuits, each alleging similar violations and claiming that four employers failed to meet their fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The defendants include several well-known names: United Airlines, CHS/Community Health Systems, Universal Services of America and Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings.
It’s worth taking a closer look at what many would view as a classic Schlichter “batch filing.”
Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to stay current on retirement plan and benefits news.
Notably, the complaints also identify the employers’ benefits consultants—Gallagher Benefit Services Inc.; Mercer Health and Benefits Administration LLC; Lockton Companies LLC; and Willis Towers Watson US LLC—alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing that worked against the interests of plan participants.
When I talk with employers about how the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) affects health plan fiduciaries, I often begin with a familiar comparison: the fiduciary process they already apply to retirement plans, and why that same discipline must now extend into health care plans. The CAA strengthened disclosure rules specifically to give fiduciaries visibility into whether broker and consultant compensation is reasonable. Under the CAA, service providers to ERISA-covered health plans who expect at least $1,000 in direct or indirect compensation must provide written compensation disclosures to the plan sponsor or employer. These disclosure requirements apply only to ERISA-covered group health plans – including medical, dental and vision – and do not extend to voluntary benefits.
But simply disclosing compensation tied to medical, vision and dental is not enough. Employers should be seeking transparency into total compensation paid to a service provider, regardless of which products or lines of business generate it. Most employers intuitively understand this concept because they have lived through a similar dynamic before.
In the early era of 403(b) plans (and even some 401(k) plans), advisers frequently appeared in workplace lunchrooms to “educate” employees and enroll them in plans. On the surface, it looked like participant support. In reality, many of those advisers earned most of their compensation through selling additional products to the same employees—annuities, life insurance and other financial offerings. Employers eventually caught on. The plaintiffs’ bar did too.
Fast forward to today. In the retirement space, court decisions and settlements have reinforced a consistent message: Having access to participants is not an open door to cross-sell. Conflicts matter, even when employees technically choose to opt in.
Now shift attention to health care benefits. Industry research – including work by Eastbridge Consulting – shows the voluntary benefits market has expanded for years, with both sales and in-force premiums reaching record highs. Brokers, in many cases, have increasingly emphasized voluntary benefits as a key part of their revenue model. A July 2025 Eastbridge report found that 51% of brokers said voluntary products account for more than half of their sales revenue.
Plaintiffs’ firms are now drawing lines between incentives, access, and conflicted recommendations. Voluntary benefits are becoming a larger part of the overall benefits ecosystem, and more brokers are weaving them directly into their broader sales strategy.
Voluntary benefits are not inherently the issue – incentives are.
When individuals are paid more to sell certain products than others, the compensation model can shape behavior: recommendations, education and even how access to employees is used. This isn’t about assuming bad intent. It’s about following the dollars and understanding the motivations they can create.
Employers should be asking broader and more fundamental questions:
Why is this person meeting with my employees?
How are they compensated – directly and indirectly?
Which products financially benefit them?
Are there conflicts that should be disclosed, mitigated or avoided?
The retirement industry makes the lesson clear: Fiduciary risk is not controlled through good intentions. It’s managed through process, transparency and documentation.
Health care benefits have reached that same inflection point.
The employer takeaway is simple but significant:
Employee access has value;
Incentives drive behavior; and
Process and documentation matter.
Even if litigation hasn’t landed on your specific plan structure yet, employers should treat recommendations, product offerings, and employee interactions as fiduciary touchpoints requiring thoughtful, documented oversight – especially when employee decisions may be influenced by those interactions.
History doesn’t always repeat itself – but it definitely rhymes.
Jamie Greenleaf is a fiduciary consultant and co-founder of Fiduciary In A Box.
This feature is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for legal or tax counsel. The author’s views do not necessarily reflect those of ISS STOXX or its affiliates.