Start Page
1275
Abstract
In many cases, a beneficiary of an employee benefit plan suffers an injury due to a fiduciary’s misfeasance, but the beneficiary does not have a claim under ERISA’s benefit-recovery provision. In these circumstances, the beneficiary’s only path to relief is § 502(a)(3)’s authorization of “appropriate equitable relief.” But whether that provision permits monetary compensation when a beneficiary sues a fiduciary is a question the Supreme Court has not cleanly resolved, and circuit courts have fractured as a result.
This Comment argues that equitable compensation—or surcharge—should be available under § 502(a)(3) when a beneficiary sues a fiduciary, but only under certain conditions. Courts should award monetary equitable relief when (1) there is a clearly identifiable financial harm, and (2) the beneficiary lacks the sophistication to pursue alternative means of protection.
This two-factor test is grounded in ERISA’s dual purposes—protecting employee benefits while incentivizing plan provision—as well as background principles of equity, Supreme Court precedent, and comparison to other statutory grants of equitable relief, such as those in Title VII and the Securities Exchange Act. It resolves the circuit split without reading monetary relief out of § 502(a)(3) entirely or rendering the “equitable” modifier superfluous. Until this issue is resolved, the availability of monetary relief for the hundreds of millions of workers under ERISA’s scope re- mains in flux. This framework offers a principled, administrable path forward.
Recommended Citation
Juedemann, Gabriel
(2026)
"A Principled Approach to Equitable Compensation UndeA Principled Approach to Equitable Compensation Under ERISA § 502(a)(3)r ERISA § 502(a)(3),"
University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 93:
Iss.
5, Article 4.
Available at:
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol93/iss5/4