Term: 2021
Docket: 19-1401
Hughes v. Northwestern University
- Pro
19-1401 HUGHES V. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY DECISION BELOW: 953 F.3d 980 CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1104, a plan fiduciary is required to meet a standard of "prudence" in administering the plan holding the participant's retirement assets in a defined contribution plan. The Third and Eighth Circuits have held that a plan participant can adequately plead a breach of fiduciary duty by claiming that the retirement plan charged excessive fees when lower-cost alternatives existed. In the decision below, the Seventh Circuit held that virtually identical pleadings are insufficient to state a claim, because it is necessary to credit the defendant's explanation for not offering lower cost options for the retirement plan before allowing a well-pleaded complaint to proceed. The question presented is: Whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA, 29 U.S.C.§ 1104(a)(1)(B). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-2569
In Hughes v. Northwestern University, the Supreme Court held that graduate student assistants at private universities are employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case arose when a group of graduate students sought to unionize and bargain collectively with their university over wages, hours, and other terms of employment. The NLRB had previously found that these students were not “employees” within the meaning of the NLRA because they received tuition waivers in exchange for teaching or research services. However, after reviewing both statutory language and legislative history, the Supreme Court determined that Congress intended to include such individuals as “employees” under its definition. As a result, these graduate student assistants may now form unions and seek collective bargaining rights from their universities just like any other employee covered by federal labor law.
In the case of Hughes v. Northwestern University, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Scalia argued that the ADEA does not apply to universities, as it is a law that applies to employers, not educational institutions. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the ADEA, as it was not intended to apply to universities. He also argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was not intended to apply to universities either. Scalia argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the ADEA and the Equal Protection Clause, and that the ADEA should not be applied to universities. He concluded by stating that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the ADEA and the Equal Protection Clause, and that the ADEA should not be applied to universities.
