Photo of Nolan S. McCready

Nolan S. McCready is an associate in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on the defense of complex ERISA actions and employment litigation in federal and state courts.

Nolan actively defends ERISA class action breach of fiduciary duty matters, including ERISA 401(k) and 403(b) excessive fee class actions. He is involved in sophisticated motion to dismiss battles in the 401(k) Plan arena. Nolan also is actively working on contesting class certification issues in the 403(b) Plan sphere. In the welfare plan area of ERISA litigation, Nolan has litigated disputes both in judicial and arbitral forums, while developing a unique expertise defending against provider claims for medical services. Finally, rounding out his welfare plan expertise, he has defended COBRA litigation as well.

Nolan also has litigated a broad array of employment cases before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, including:

  • Single-plaintiff claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Labor Code, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
  • Individual and class/representative wage and hour violations;
  • California's Private Attorneys General Act; and,
  • Administrative hearings before the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

While in law school, Nolan served as senior notes and comments editor of the Nexus Journal of Law & Policy, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University. As a three-year letterman on the football team at Penn State, Nolan was named an ESPN/College Sports Information Directors of America Academic All-American his senior year.

Four former employees of Eversource Energy Company recently obtained partial class certification of their claims. However, the District of Connecticut ruled that because the named plaintiffs are all former participants in the plan, they could not seek prospective relief, and only granted certification with respect to claims for retrospective relief.

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint sought