Photo of Lindsey H. Chopin

Lindsey H. Chopin is a principal in the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s ERISA Complex Class Action, Employee Benefits and Class Action groups.

Lindsey focuses her practice on the defense of complex ERISA class-actions filed against public and private single employer ERISA plan sponsors and fiduciaries, as well as multi-employer plans and fiduciaries and ERISA plan services providers. She has litigated a wide variety of class action claims, including 401(k) fee claims, stock drop claims, defined benefit mortality assumption claims, “church plan” and “government plan” claims, health and welfare plan claims, and ERISA Section 510 claims. Lindsey also litigates ERISA benefit claims and claims involving non-ERISA plans.

Lindsey is the author of several ERISA-related articles, including an article focusing on ERISA fee litigation that appeared in the Benefits Law Journal, and is a frequent speaker on ERISA and class action litigation issues, including e-discovery best practices and ethics and professionalism when using social media in litigation. She is a senior editor of Chapter 15 of Bloomberg BNA’s Employee Benefits Law treatise and a contributing author to the ERISA Fiduciary Answers Book and Chapter 39 of the sixth edition of Bloomberg BNA’s ERISA Litigation treatise published in November 2017.

Prior to joining Jackson Lewis, Lindsey practiced complex ERISA litigation for five years at a large, national firm and served as a one-year term clerk for the Honorable Carl J. Barbier in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

While attending Loyola University School of Law, Lindsey was the articles and symposium editor of the Loyola Law Review and received the “Best Casenote Award” for her casenote analyzing the impact of Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011), an FLSA matter decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prior to attending law school and practicing law, Lindsey was a teachNOLA fellow and taught high school French in New Orleans’ public schools.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts can review decisions by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board denying claimants’ requests to reopen prior benefits denials. Salinas v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., No. 19-199 (Feb. 3, 2021).

Read the full article at Jackson Lewis Benefits Law Advisor Blog.

An Arkansas law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs) generic drug reimbursement rates, and affecting the cost of prescription drugs provided under ERISA-governed benefit plans and the administration of those plans, is not preempted by ERISA, the U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously. Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, No. 18-540, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5988

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court returns to a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the consolidated cases of California v. Texas (No. 19-840) and Texas v. California (No. 19-1019), the Court will consider whether a group of states and private individuals have standing to challenge the ACA. If that procedural hurdle is

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the second of several ERISA disputes this term, the first issue we discussed as the term began, October 5, 2020.  Monday, November 2, 2020, the Justices will consider whether the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a claimant’s request to open a prior benefits decision is a “final decision” reviewable

The Supreme Court, whose new term begins today, the first Monday in October, will consider a number of cases impacting employee benefits and benefits litigation.  This is the first in a series analyzing these cases as they are heard by the Court.  The first issue up concerns prescription drug benefit regulation, and later in the

As the circuit courts continue to define the pleading standards for fiduciary breach claims challenging investments in defined contribution plans, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s finding that a group of 403(b) plan participants failed to state such a claim.  In Davis v Washington University, plaintiffs alleged that