Most plan sponsors mean well. They want employees to retire comfortably. They hire professionals. They respond when issues arise. In everyday life, that counts for something. Under ERISA, it counts for almost nothing.<\/p>\n
Fiduciary responsibility is not judged by motive. It is judged by process. Courts do not ask whether a sponsor tried hard. They ask what steps were taken, when decisions were made, and how those decisions were documented.<\/p>\n
This is where many well-intentioned sponsors get tripped up. Providers are hired, but not reviewed. Fees are negotiated once, then assumed reasonable forever. Meetings happen, but minutes do not. Problems are fixed, but the analysis behind the fix is never recorded.<\/p>\n
From the sponsor\u2019s perspective, these gaps feel technical. From a plaintiff\u2019s perspective, they look like negligence.<\/p>\n
A prudent process doesn\u2019t require perfection. It requires consistency and evidence. It shows that decisions were informed, alternatives were considered, and actions were taken for the benefit of participants\u2014not convenience.<\/p>\n
The uncomfortable truth is that good intentions often create complacency. Sponsors assume that because they care, they are protected. But ERISA doesn\u2019t measure care. It measures conduct.<\/p>\n
The sponsors who sleep best are not the ones who hope nothing goes wrong. They are the ones who know that if something does, they can show exactly how and why decisions were made.<\/p>\n
Intent may start the journey. Process finishes it.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Most plan sponsors mean well. They want employees to retire comfortably. They hire professionals. They respond when issues arise. In everyday life, that counts for something. Under ERISA, it counts for almost nothing. Fiduciary responsibility is not judged by motive. … Continue reading