Frick, Tyler v. Empower Retirement, LLC
3:25-cv-00284
| W.D. Wis. | Apr 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Tyler Frick alleges he was coerced by Coty Mayfield, a former friend, to withdraw $17,000 from his 401(k) while mentally incapacitated and deposit it in a joint account, from which Mayfield took $10,000 and disappeared.
- Frick sued Empower Retirement, the plan administrator, under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty and under the ADA for failure to accommodate his disability during the fraud investigation.
- Frick also sued Mayfield under state law for financial exploitation and harassment, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The case is at the screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) due to Frick’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The court dismissed Frick’s ERISA and ADA claims against Empower as insufficiently pled, but allowed leave to amend the ERISA claim.
- The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Mayfield, dismissing those claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Empower Retirement is liable under the ADA for failing to accommodate Frick’s disability during its fraud investigation | Empower failed to accommodate his mental illness during its handling of his complaint. | (Not addressed; not a public accommodation.) | Dismissed; ADA Title III does not cover ERISA plans. |
| Whether Empower Retirement breached fiduciary duty under ERISA by authorizing the withdrawals to Frick | Empower should have detected and prevented suspicious, first-time, large withdrawals by a mentally ill participant. | Withdrawals were requested by Frick, no policy breach, no way to know of mental incapacity. | Dismissed; no abuse of discretion or policy violation alleged. |
| Whether Frick’s complaint states a viable federal claim sufficient to support supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against Mayfield | Federal and state claims are intertwined as they arise from the same sequence of facts. | (Not addressed.) | Declined; claims are conceptually and factually distinct; dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether Frick is entitled to emergency injunctive relief or recruitment of counsel before stating a viable federal claim | Needed to prevent further harm and obtain legal support immediately. | (Not addressed.) | Denied; premature until a viable federal claim is pled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard)
- Morgan v. Joint Admin. Bd., Ret. Plan of Pillsbury Co. & Am. Fed'n of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO-CLC, 268 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2001) (ERISA plans are not public accommodations under the ADA)
- Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2016) (leave to amend generally permitted for pro se plaintiffs)