On July 19, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Aldridge v. Regions Bank, No. 22-5020, adopted the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Rose v. PSA Airlines, Inc., 80 F.4th 488 (4th Cir. 2023)—successfully argued by Groom Law Group—limiting the equitable remedies available under ERISA section 502(a)(3).
The Sixth Circuit's decision reinforces that courts must scrutinize equitable claims under ERISA through the lens of traditional equitable doctrines and defenses—including that plaintiffs identify a traceable res when pursuing unjust enrichment. The court's alignment with Rose reinforces a doctrinal approach that guards against expanding ERISA's remedial scope beyond what Congress authorized.
Background of Aldridge
The plaintiffs in Aldridge were participants in a "top-hat" plan seeking benefits allegedly lost when their employer faced bankruptcy. Along with various state-law claims, plaintiffs sued the bank that administered the employers' top-hat plans under ERISA section 502(a)(3), seeking an "equitable surcharge" of the benefits owed between when payments were halted and the administrator received written notice of the employer's insolvency.
The district court dismissed the state-law claims as preempted by ERISA. It granted summary judgment on the ERISA claim, reasoning that plaintiffs' request for lost benefits did not qualify as "equitable relief" available under ERISA section 502(a)(3).
The Sixth Circuit agreed that the state-law claims were preempted under ERISA section 514(a) because they sought recovery of plan benefits and imposed alternative duties on a core ERISA plan entity. Even though top-hat plans are exempt from ERISA's fiduciary duties, the court emphasized that this exemption was a deliberate policy choice by Congress such that enforcing state-law or contractual fiduciary standards would disrupt ERISA's uniform framework. The court rejected plaintiffs' attempt to characterize their claims as enforcing the trust agreement, finding them indistinguishable from benefits claims under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B).
Equitable Relief and Reliance on Rose
Turning to the ERISA claim, the court held that plaintiffs' request for monetary "surcharge" was not equitable relief permitted under ERISA section 502(a)(3). Like the Fourth Circuit in Rose, the Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates foreclosed monetary relief under ERISA section 502(a)(3), even when styled as equitable surcharge. The Sixth Circuit found the distinction between relief sought from a nonfiduciary (as in Mertens) and a breaching fiduciary (as in Cigna Corp v. Amara) unpersuasive. Citing Rose, the court held that the identity of the defendant did not change the fundamental nature of the remedy: if the relief is measured by compensatory losses rather than traceable assets, it remains legal, not equitable.
The court further endorsed Rose's reading of trust law history agreeing that, even in equity courts, surcharge remedies functioned as damages awards and were not conceptually distinct from legal compensation. While courts of equity sometimes had exclusive jurisdiction to award surcharge, the Sixth Circuit—echoing Rose—found this insufficient to convert what is substantively a damages remedy into equitable relief within the meaning of ERISA section 502(a)(3).
Finally, the Sixth Circuit cited Rose as consistent with its own pre-Amara precedent (for example, Helfrich v. PNC Bank), which rejected attempts to recover compensatory damages under ERISA's equitable relief provision. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' attempt to repackage lost benefits as "equitable surcharge" could not overcome the statutory and precedential limits on ERISA remedies. In short, Rose provided the analytical foundation and doctrinal reinforcement for the Sixth Circuit's narrow reading of "equitable relief" and its refusal to expand ERISA remedies by judicial interpretation.
Implications for Fiduciaries and Plan Sponsors
Aldridge solidifies the trend toward judicial consensus that monetary relief under ERISA section 502(a)(3) is limited to claims meeting the traditional requirements of equity.
- Monetary relief must be traceable to specific property held by the defendant.
- Generalized or hypothetical losses are insufficient to sustain equitable claims.
- Defenses grounded in equitable doctrines remain potent tools for fiduciaries.
These principles, articulated in Rose and reaffirmed in Aldridge, give fiduciaries and plan sponsors greater clarity in defending against efforts to expand ERISA's remedial scheme beyond its statutory boundaries.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
