Bennett v. Ecolab

CASE: Bennett v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 24-CV-0546 (JMB/SGE), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. JUDGE: Jeffrey M. Bryan. DATE: March 24, 2026.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Scott Bennett, Brad Wilde, and David Statton are retired former employees of Ecolab, Inc. and participants in the Ecolab Pension Plan (the Plan), a defined benefit pension plan. Under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), pension plans must offer married participants a joint and survivor annuity (JSA) that is 'actuarially equivalent' to the single life annuity (SLA) a participant would otherwise receive. The JSA continues payments to a surviving spouse after the participant's death. Actuarial equivalence requires converting the SLA to a JSA using assumptions about interest rates and mortality (life expectancy). Plaintiffs alleged that Ecolab used a 1971 Group Annuity Table — which does not reflect modern, longer life expectancies — making JSA payments artificially low. They brought four ERISA counts: Count I (violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1055, the joint and survivor annuity requirement); Count II (violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1054, actuarial equivalence requirements); Count III (violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1053, ERISA's anti-forfeiture clause); and Count IV (breach of fiduciary duty). All three plaintiffs selected JSA benefits upon retirement. Bennett and Wilde also took advantage of the Plan's early retirement option: benefits commenced at age 55 and 59, respectively. Statton retired at age 66, past normal retirement age of 65.

MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARDS: Ecolab moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically lack of Article III standing) as to Bennett's and Wilde's claims, and under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) as to Statton's claims. For Count IV, Ecolab moved to dismiss all three plaintiffs' claims as time-barred.

COUNT II — DISMISSED AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS: At oral argument, Plaintiffs conceded that 29 U.S.C. § 1054 does not apply to their claims. The court dismissed Count II with prejudice as to all three plaintiffs without further analysis.

COUNTS I AND III — BENNETT AND WILDE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING: The court conducted a 'factual attack' on jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), meaning it could consider evidence outside the complaint without presuming the plaintiffs' allegations to be true. To have Article III standing — the constitutional requirement for federal court jurisdiction — a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete injury in fact. The court found that Bennett and Wilde suffered no injury in fact because, when both conversions applicable to their benefits are considered together, they actually received more than the legal minimum. The Plan's early retirement factor (reducing benefits by 1/280 per month prior to age 62) was more generous than the minimum conversion factor required under section 417(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (the statutory minimum actuarial assumptions). The court worked through specific numbers: Bennett's current benefit of $1,323.55/month exceeded the $932.21/month he would have received using section 417(e) assumptions for both conversions; Wilde's $5,032.86/month exceeded the hypothetical $3,953.07/month. The court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that this analysis was unfair because it allowed Ecolab to 'offset' a punitive JSA conversion with a generous early retirement factor at the expense of married participants. The court found no binding authority for the proposition that ERISA mandates parity between married and unmarried retirees, and noted that Plaintiffs raised no marital status discrimination claim. Counts I and III as to Bennett and Wilde were dismissed with prejudice.

COUNT I — STATTON SURVIVES DISMISSAL: Ecolab argued that Statton failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) did not allege his specific monthly benefit amount or the amount he would receive under corrected actuarial assumptions. The court considered Statton's benefit calculation form (Sealed Exhibit E), which was attached to Ecolab's motion, finding it appropriate to consider under the rule that courts may consider materials 'integral to the claim' in ERISA cases. Exhibit E showed Statton's monthly benefit of $1,752.59 as an SLA at age 66 (his age at commencement). The court rejected Ecolab's argument that the absence of an age-65 SLA defeated the claim, finding it immaterial because the SAC plausibly alleged that any starting SLA amount was derived from outdated mortality tables, meaning any JSA calculated from it would be correspondingly understated. Count I as to Statton survives.

COUNT III — STATTON SURVIVES DISMISSAL: ERISA's anti-forfeiture clause, 29 U.S.C. § 1053(a), provides that a participant's right to their 'normal retirement benefit' (the benefit payable at normal retirement age, not an early retirement benefit) is nonforfeitable. District courts have split on whether this provision can be used to challenge the use of outdated mortality tables in JSA conversions. The court noted the split but did not resolve it definitively as to all cases, finding instead that — unlike Bennett and Wilde, who received a subsidy exceeding any alleged forfeiture — Statton never received an early retirement subsidy. Without that offset, the court found that Statton plausibly alleged that excessive actuarial reductions in the JSA conversion constituted an impermissible forfeiture of his nonforfeitable benefit. Count III as to Statton survives.

COUNT IV — DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS: ERISA imposes a six-year statute of repose for fiduciary breach claims running from 'the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation.' See 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)(A); Intel Corp. Inv. Pol'y Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. 178 (2020). The court agreed with Ecolab that the 'last action' was when each plaintiff's benefits commenced: Bennett on December 1, 2014 (claim expired December 1, 2020); Wilde on May 1, 2018 (claim expired May 1, 2024); Statton on August 1, 2018 (claim expired August 1, 2024). The court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the breach recurred each time Ecolab updated the Plan for some participants but not others, finding that treating a failure to remedy a past breach as a new breach would render the statute of repose meaningless. The original complaint was filed February 21, 2024, nearly four years after Bennett's claim expired. Wilde was added in the First Amended Complaint on June 14, 2024, over a month after his claim expired. Statton was added in the SAC on July 16, 2025, almost a year after his claim expired. The court found that the relation-back doctrine (which allows amended pleadings to be treated as filed on the date of the original pleading) could not save any plaintiff's Count IV claim because the original pleading itself was untimely as to Bennett, and an untimely original complaint cannot provide relation-back benefit to later-added plaintiffs. Count IV dismissed with prejudice as to all three plaintiffs.

DISPOSITION: Motion to dismiss GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counts I, II, and III dismissed with prejudice as to Bennett and Wilde. Count II dismissed with prejudice as to Statton. Count IV dismissed with prejudice as to all three plaintiffs. The remainder of the motion — meaning Counts I and III as to Statton — is DENIED, and those claims proceed.