In the 1995 case Varity Corporation v. Charles Howe et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees who had been misled by their employer, Varity Corporation, about the financial health of a new subsidiary company they were transferred to. The court held that under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), an employer acts as a fiduciary when it conveys information about company benefits and therefore has a duty not to mislead its employees or misrepresent facts regarding these benefits. When Varity deceived its workers into transferring from a more secure corporation to one on the brink of bankruptcy, it violated this fiduciary responsibility. As such, affected employees were entitled to individual relief under ERISA section 502(a)(3). This decision underscored employers' responsibilities towards their workers with regard to benefit plans and highlighted potential legal consequences for companies that deceive their staff.

In the dissenting opinion for VARITY CORPORATION v. CHARLES HOWE et al., Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor and Scalia, argued that the majority misinterpreted ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) in a way that expanded its scope beyond what Congress intended. They contended that Varity Corporation's actions did not constitute fiduciary conduct under ERISA because they were acting as an employer rather than a plan administrator when communicating with employees about their benefits. The dissenters believed this distinction was crucial to maintain as it would otherwise blur the lines between business decisions made by employers and fiduciary responsibilities of plan administrators. They also disagreed with the majority's view on individual relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), arguing it should be limited to traditional equitable remedies only.