Supreme Court Requires High Standard to Show Actual Knowledge

On Wednesday, the unanimous Court held that ERISA’s shorter three-year limitations period applies only when the plaintiff gains “actual knowledge” of the alleged fiduciary breach.   Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, __ U.S. __, No. 18-1116 (U.S. 2-26-20).   A plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” under §1113(2) of information contained in disclosures which he is provided on a website but he does not read or cannot recall reading.  The statute “requires more than evidence of disclosure alone. That all relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff is no doubt relevant in judging whether he gained knowledge of that information.  . . . . To meet §1113(2)’s “actual knowledge” requirement, however, the plaintiff must in fact have become aware of that information.”  Nonetheless, “actual knowledge” may be proven through “usual ways” at any stage in the litigation, including through “inference from circumstantial evidence.”  Defendants may also contend that evidence of “willful blindness” supports a finding of “actual knowledge.”  Methinks that we will see many more "click" requirements to demonstrate that we have read legal disclosures. 

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.