Known true · enters 31 Dec 2026

A lawsuit is filed in a US federal court that pleads an ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against the sponsor or fiduciaries of an employer group health plan and cites violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act as a basis for the breach.

TRUE on the docket date of a complaint filed in a US federal district court within the window that (a) pleads a claim under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty against the sponsor, plan committee or other named fiduciaries of an employer-sponsored group health plan over the plan's design or administration, whether brought by plan participants or by the Department of Labor, and (b) cites the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA, 'mental health parity') as a basis of the alleged breach, as shown by the complaint text. A suit only for denied benefits under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) against an insurer or administrator, a state-court suit, or an amended complaint in a case filed before the window does not count. Legal press reports are a finding aid only. FALSE when no such complaint has been filed by the deadline.

Resolution source: Federal court dockets (CourtListener / PACER)

Readings: 'ERISA lawsuit' is read, from the post's discussion of the Schlichter Bogard fiduciary-breach suits against employers (United Airlines, CHS, Universal Services of America, LabCorp), as a fiduciary-breach suit against a plan sponsor or its fiduciaries, not a benefit-denial suit against an insurer.; 'The first' is read as 'at least one such suit is filed within the window'; the ledger does not verify that none existed before the statement date.; 'Referencing mental health parity violations' = the complaint cites MHPAEA (or 'mental health parity') as a basis of the fiduciary breach.

overturned (date): An earlier 2026 complaint fits the criterion as applied at least as well as H.N.: M.M. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., Bank of America Corp., its Corporate Benefits Committee and its Group Benefits Program, W.D.N.C. No. 3:26-cv-00219, filed 2026-03-19. It names the employer as sponsor of a self-funded plan and the plan committee as administrator, pleads that they 'are fiduciaries of the Plan' (para 13) and 'breached their fiduciary duties' (para 66), and its Second Cause of Action, 'Violation of the MHPAEA (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3))', says 'these MHPAEA violations by Defendants are breaches of fiduciary duty' (para 78). H.N. (2026-03-26) instead concedes 'Marsh played no role in the decision' (para 3). Both are single-family benefit suits, not the Schlichter-style class actions in the readings; under that reading neither counts (RECAP shows no such 2026 suit). Under the criterion as written the first-true date moves to 2026-03-19, if in window; an earlier 2026 filing may exist outside RECAP.