Participants pursuing statutory ERISA claims no longer face the Eleventh Circuit’s requirement to first exhaust remedies through their plan’s administrative procedures. In Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. of America, Inc., No. 24-10084 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2026) (en banc), the court overturned decades of precedent and discarded the rule originating from Mason v. Continental Group, Inc., 763 F.2d 1219 (11th Cir. 1985). Removing this longstanding and unique obstacle for plaintiffs may lead to increased ERISA litigation for plan sponsors and fiduciaries sued in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
Background
The dispute concerned an employee stock ownership plan’s (ESOP) purchase of Inland Fresh Seafood stock from four company officers and directors. The ESOP financed the 2016 purchase with a $92 million loan.
Five former employees alleged that misleading financial projections and insufficient investigation resulted in a purchase price substantially above the stock’s fair market value. They sued under ERISA Sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3), seeking relief for alleged fiduciary misconduct.
The district court dismissed the action because the plaintiffs had not exhausted the plan’s administrative process. A three-judge appellate panel affirmed under Mason, although two judges urged the full court to reconsider that precedent. The Eleventh Circuit then reheard the case en banc and allowed the Department of Labor, which has opposed the exhaustion requirement, to participate in oral argument. On October 13, the court reversed and remanded.
Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion
The court concluded that Mason’s rule could not be reconciled with ERISA’s text. Writing for the court, Judge Adalberto Jordan called the requirement “an atextual product of judicial creation based solely on policy reasons.” ERISA contains no exhaustion requirement for statutory claims, and “courts are not at liberty to add to or take from the language of a statute.” Only Congress may add such a requirement, through a statutory amendment.
The court also noted that seven other circuits have rejected the administrative exhaustion requirement for statutory ERISA claims. While the Seventh Circuit allows courts to require exhaustion in their discretion, the Eleventh Circuit was the lone outlier in making it mandatory.
The court applied its holding retroactively. Notably, it did not change its precedent requiring plan participants to exhaust administrative remedies for benefit-denial claims.
Takeaways
Bolton’s reach extends beyond ESOP transactions. Plaintiffs asserting any ERISA fiduciary claim – such as excessive fee, investment loss, or prohibited transaction claims – may now proceed directly to court.
Plan sponsors should examine claims provisions in their Plans and summary plan descriptions in light of the decision. The decision also expressly leaves existing exhaustion precedent for benefit-denial claims undisturbed.
Fiduciaries should also continue to maintain clear records supporting their decisions. Bolton changes the route to litigation; the underlying fiduciary standards remain the same.
If you have any questions, members of the Jackson Lewis ERISA Litigation Practice Group are available to assist. Please contact a team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.