Law Center Search Results

On July 17, 2026, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the 3rd Circuit to affirm the dismissal of a meritless ERISA class action involving employee allegations of health insurance plan mismanagement despite receiving all of the benefits the plan promised. In this case, a group of Johnson & Johnson employees claim that if J&J had better managed its self-funded health plan, the employees would have paid less for certain prescription medications. Thankfully, the district court dismissed the case, noting that the claims were far too speculative and failed to plead a concrete injury. The plaintiffs received the benefits to which they were entitled under the plan, and they did not offer any proof that different plan administration would have led to lower drug prices for participants. The plaintiffs appealed and attempt to convince the 3rd Circuit of their unfounded damages theory. Our amicus brief argues that the district court’s decision should be upheld because the plaintiffs were not injured. Their claims rest on pure conjecture that their employer could have negotiated better drug prices. Further, we argue that subjecting companies to this type of ERISA litigation when they fulfill their obligations as promised will deter employers from offering benefits packages to their employees in the first place. This undermines the very purpose of ERISA and harms employers and employees alike.