779 F.Supp.3d 974
N.D. Ill.2025Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former participants in UNITE HERE Health Plan Units 178 and 278, ERISA-covered plans, challenging specific cost-allocation practices by the fund's trustees.
- Plaintiffs allege that the Board of Trustees of UNITE HERE Health (“UHH”) breached fiduciary duties by (1) discounting administrative cost allocation for Las Vegas’s Unit 150 and (2) taking on excessive fund-wide administrative expenses.
- UHH’s administrative costs are allocated among various plan units via a decades-old policy, with Unit 150 receiving a substantial discount; as the largest unit, its discount affects cost burdens on other units.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification for all (approx. 7,500+) Unit 178 and 278 participants from March 2016 onward, seeking injunctive and monetary relief under ERISA §§ 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3).
- The court assessed class certification under Rule 23, focusing on numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, ultimately granting certification for certain issues (liability and injunctive relief), but not for individualized monetary damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality & Typicality of Claims Under Rule 23(a) | Claims arise from uniform Board policies impacting all class members | Individualized calculation of administrative expenses means claims are not sufficiently common/typical | Claims are sufficiently common and typical: uniform polices and conduct at issue |
| Adequacy of Representation by Named Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs share the injury and interests of class; counsel is qualified | Named plaintiffs are not sufficiently involved; former participants have different interests | Named plaintiffs minimally meet adequacy threshold; difference in interests minimal |
| Certification Under Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(3) | Suitable under (b)(1) due to risk of inconsistent rulings; alternatively (b)(3) | Individual damages require individualized inquiries, so only (b)(3) is proper | Certifies under (b)(3) for liability/injunctive issues; damages individualized |
| Predominance of Common or Individual Issues | Liability issues predominate; damages can be addressed later | Damage calculations will overwhelm common issues | Class certified for liability/injunctive relief only; damages phase will be individualized |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (key standard on Rule 23(a) commonality requirement)
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir.) (class certification analysis under Rule 23(b)(3) predominance)
- Oshana v. Coca–Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.) (liberal construction of typicality requirement)
- Carnegie v. Household Intern., Inc., 376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir.) (discretion to certify class for liability, bifurcate damages phase)
- Butler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir.) (damages phase can be individualized in class actions)
- Howard v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 989 F.3d 587 (7th Cir.) (divided certification and subclasses in class actions)