Whether a private employee benefit plan's unilateral adoption of a forum selection clause that circumvents the venue choices that Congress granted plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA is a violation of public policy

QUESTION PRESENTED In 1974, Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA or Act), 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. Its purpose was “to protect .. . the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries .. .” ERISA, §2(b), 29 U.S.C. §1001(b). One way Congress chose to accomplish that result was “by providing” those individuals with “ready access to the Federal courts” to enforce their rights. Jd. It did so by including a special venue provision in the Act, §502(e) (2), 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2), under which participants and their beneficiaries could file suit against employee benefit plans in any one of three venues -where the plan is administered, where the breach occurred or where the defendant plan resides or may be found. Despite the choices made by Congress, in this case the Pfizer Retirement Committee adopted its own “special” forum selection clause making the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the sole venue for all actions brought against it by its plan participants and their beneficiaries. As applied here to the breach of fiduciary duty action brought against it by Jeffrey Robertson, that venue displaced all three of the venues that Congress granted him under Section 502(e) (2) of the Act. Not only that. The Committee’s choice of venue was adopted without Mr. Robertson’s knowledge, involvement or consent. The question presented is: Whether a private employee benefit plan’s unilateral adoption of a forum selection clause that circumvents the venue choices that Congress granted plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA is a violation of public policy.