Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DOL NEWS—Labor Department urges Supreme Court to uphold dismissal in Intel ERISA imprudence case, (Jul 13, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The brief argues underperformance claims require meaningful comparisons.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting respondents in Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, urging the court to affirm a Ninth Circuit decision that upheld dismissal of claims alleging Intel acted imprudently by including hedge funds and private-equity investments in its retirement-plan offerings. The DOL said the case concerns the pleading standard for ERISA imprudence claims based on alleged investment underperformance and argued that plaintiffs must show the challenged investment underperformed relative to a “meaningful benchmark” investment with similar goals, strategies, and risk profiles.

Intel investment strategy challenged. The case stems from claims by former Intel employees challenging the company’s use of hedge funds and private-equity investments within certain target-date and global diversified funds offered through Intel retirement plans. The government noted that Intel’s fiduciaries told participants the investments were part of a risk-mitigation strategy intended to provide greater protection during market downturns, with the tradeoff of potentially lower returns during stronger markets.

The DOL in its press release described the filing as part of an ongoing effort to provide regulatory clarity for retirement-plan sponsors and said the plaintiffs’ preferred approach would effectively require fiduciaries to pursue riskier investments in search of higher returns. The department said the brief reflects its view that plan sponsors retain discretion to prioritize long-term retirement security when selecting investments for participants.

Meaningful benchmark required. In its brief, the U.S. argued that ERISA is focused on fiduciary process rather than investment results. According to the government, underperformance by itself does not plausibly suggest imprudent conduct because different investments may pursue different objectives and levels of risk, leading to different outcomes even when fiduciaries act prudently.

The DOL said the Ninth Circuit correctly held that plaintiffs seeking to establish imprudence through comparative performance allegations must identify a sound basis for comparison. The brief contends that the plaintiffs compared Intel’s funds to funds pursuing different objectives and did not allege facts showing that the proposed comparators shared Intel’s risk-mitigation aims.

According to the DOL, the meaningful-benchmark requirement does not impose a heightened pleading standard but instead applies ordinary federal pleading rules requiring facts that support a plausible inference of misconduct. The government also argued that ERISA’s disclosure requirements provide participants with substantial information that can be used to identify appropriate comparators when bringing underperformance-based claims.

The filing concludes that the Ninth Circuit’s judgment should be affirmed because the complaint failed to allege meaningful benchmarks, misidentified certain Intel benchmarks and did not adequately allege that the challenged hedge-fund and private-equity investments were imprudent when viewed as part of the plans’ overall portfolios.

The case is No. 25-498.

Companies: Intel Corporation; Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee; U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Department of Justice

News: LitigationNewsTrends BenefitsNews PensionBenefitPlans AgencyNews