Photo of Adam R. Carlisle

Adam R. Carlisle is an associate in the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s ERISA Complex Litigation group. Adam uses his experiences as a former high school teacher and NCAA Division I track and field coach to communicate effectively and passionately on behalf of his clients.

Adam’s practice focuses on defending employers, fiduciaries, plan sponsors, and other defendants in complex class action and individual plaintiff ERISA matters. Adam has experience representing clients in 401(k) and 403(b) fee claims, benefits claims, ESOP disputes, ERISA Section 510 claims, and other claims for breach of fiduciary duties. Adam also provides preventive advice and counseling for employers in ERISA and workplace law matters.

While attending Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, Adam was a member of the Loyola Law Review, a Moot Court Staff Member, and an oralist and brief writer for the Willem C. Vis International Moot Court Team.

Before attending law school, Adam spent three years as a history teacher at Zachary High School and two years as a track and field coach at the University of New Orleans.

The DOL’s cybersecurity investigation into Alight Solutions, LLC, a retirement plan recordkeeper, has queued up court rulings on the reach of the DOL’s subpoena power that may have important implications for ERISA plan sponsors and their respective recordkeepers and service providers moving forward. First, the Seventh Circuit will weigh in on whether the district court

A California district court recently foreclosed a former independent contractor’s claims for benefits from ERISA-governed plans when it found that plaintiff was not a “participant” as defined by ERISA and thus did not have statutory standing to assert his ERISA claims. Alders v. YUM! Brands, Inc., No. 8:21-cv-01191-PSG-DFM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2022).

After working

In Avenoso v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, No. 21-1772, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35264 (8th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021), the Eighth Circuit clarified its position in a circuit split over the proper judicial procedure for deciding ERISA benefits cases.

The underlying case concerned the defendant’s denial of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA