Aramark Services v. Aetna Life Ins
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
Aramark sued its third-party administrator, Aetna, for alleged ERISA fiduciary breaches. The Fifth Circuit held that (1) the parties did not "clearly and unmistakably" delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, so the district court properly decided the issue; (2) Aramark’s claims seek equitable relief and therefore fall within the carve-out from the Master Services Agreement’s arbitration clause; and (3) the district court correctly denied Aetna’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. Accordingly, the judgment was AFFIRMED.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether monetary ‘make-whole’ or ‘surcharge’ relief against an ERISA fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) constitutes permissible ‘equitable relief.’
Circuit Positions
Monetary ‘surcharge’ against an ERISA fiduciary is equitable relief available under § 502(a)(3).
Monetary make-whole relief against an ERISA fiduciary is legal, not equitable, and is unavailable under § 502(a)(3).
Conflict Summary
The Fifth Circuit continues to follow Gearlds and Amara, allowing beneficiaries or co-fiduciaries to obtain monetary surcharge against an ERISA fiduciary as equitable relief under § 502(a)(3). The Fourth Circuit (Rose v. PSA Airlines, 2023) and Sixth Circuit (Aldridge v. Regions Bank, 2025) have rejected that view after Montanile, holding that such compensatory damages are legal, not equitable, and therefore unavailable under § 502(a)(3).