Mass General Brigham agreed to pay $8.25 million to settle a class action accusing it of mismanaging its employee 403(b) retirement plan, and a federal judge in Massachusetts granted final approval on September 25, 2025. The Mass General Brigham ERISA settlement in Norton v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated covers more than 100,000 current and former participants who were enrolled in the plan at any point since January 2016.1Bloomberg Law. Mass General Brigham $8.25 Million Retirement Fee Deal Gets Nod
Who Is Covered
The class includes participants and beneficiaries in the Mass General Brigham 403(b) plan at any time from January 2016 forward. That is a broad group: the plan held more than $10 billion in assets by fiscal year-end 2020 and offered investment options through TIAA, Fidelity, and Vanguard.2ASPPA Net. Settlements Struck in Several Excessive Fee Suits3Mass General Brigham. Integrated Care Staff Benefits
Judge Myong J. Joun granted preliminary approval on May 5, 2025, and set a final fairness hearing for September 25, 2025. No objectors appeared at that hearing. The court approved the settlement, entered judgment, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and expenses the same day.1Bloomberg Law. Mass General Brigham $8.25 Million Retirement Fee Deal Gets Nod4PACER Monitor. Norton et al v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated et al
What the Lawsuit Alleged
Filed on January 13, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the complaint accused Mass General Brigham, its Board of Directors, and its Investment Committee of breaching fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.5PlanAdviser. Norton v. Mass General Brigham Complaint The core claim was that fiduciaries failed to keep both investment management fees and recordkeeping costs reasonable, and did not use the plan’s size to bargain those costs down.6PlanAdviser. PPL Corp. and Mass Brigham General Face ERISA Lawsuits
The complaint focused on seven TIAA-CREF funds that it said carried an extra 10 basis points (0.10%) in costs above what the fund provider required, allegedly because of a revenue-sharing arrangement. Across those seven funds, which held roughly $1.3 billion in combined assets, plaintiffs calculated about $1.3 million per year in alleged excess costs. They argued that prudent fiduciaries should have chosen share classes with the lowest available expense ratios rather than tolerating revenue-sharing that inflated participant costs.5PlanAdviser. Norton v. Mass General Brigham Complaint
Mass General Brigham did not admit liability. The case ran more than three years, and at one point the judge blocked an immediate defense appeal before the parties reached agreement.7Bloomberg Law. Mass General Brigham Retirement Suit Settles for $8.25 Million
How the $8.25 Million Breaks Down
Plaintiffs told the court that $8.25 million represented between 20% and 30% of participants’ total estimated damages.7Bloomberg Law. Mass General Brigham Retirement Suit Settles for $8.25 Million Attorney fees came to approximately $2.75 million. After fees, expenses, and administrative costs, the average per-participant recovery worked out to $32.57, according to a 2025 settlements survey by the defense-side firm Davis & Harman.8Davis & Harman. Underperformance and Excessive Fee Settlements Survey
That per-participant figure fueled debate about who ERISA fee cases really benefit. The Davis & Harman study, which reviewed 27 ERISA settlements disclosed in 2025, flagged the Mass General Brigham case as a statistical outlier: it calculated $84,425 in attorney fees for every $1 of per-participant compensation, against a dataset average of $18,830 to $1 and a median of $10,861 to $1.8Davis & Harman. Underperformance and Excessive Fee Settlements Survey Critics of the broader litigation trend cited those numbers to argue the cases mostly benefit the firms filing them, and pointed to rising fiduciary liability insurance premiums as a cost carried by all plan sponsors.9PSCA. Who Benefits From ERISA Litigation Settlements
Mark Boyko of Bailey Glasser offered the other view, saying excessive-fee suits drive fee reductions and plan improvements across the whole 401(k) and 403(b) industry, including at plans that are never sued.9PSCA. Who Benefits From ERISA Litigation Settlements
Where the Case Fits
The plaintiffs were represented by Capozzi Adler PC, one of the most active filers of ERISA excessive-fee class actions, with 21 cases filed in 2022 and six more in 2023. Morgan Lewis represented Mass General Brigham.10Law360. Mass General Inks $8.25M Deal to End Retirement Fee Suit These suits typically allege that fiduciaries failed to use plan size to negotiate lower recordkeeping fees, kept expensive mutual fund share classes when cheaper ones existed, and skipped competitive bidding or regular benchmarking. The governing standard is ERISA’s requirement that plan fiduciaries act with the care, skill, and diligence of a prudent expert.11HUB International. Fiduciary Liability Exposures: Excessive Fee Litigation in Review
Courts have split on how demanding that standard should be. In the CommonSpirit Health case, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal and held that ERISA does not require fiduciaries to find the cheapest possible funds on the market.11HUB International. Fiduciary Liability Exposures: Excessive Fee Litigation in Review The Mass General Brigham matter never reached that kind of appellate ruling; it ended in a negotiated payment, with judgment entered and the case terminated on September 25, 2025.4PACER Monitor. Norton et al v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated et al