In Re Quest Diagnostics Erisa Litigation: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-2866

Case Summary: In re Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation is a putative ERISA class action in which participants in Quest’s profit‑sharing 401(k) plan challenge alleged fiduciary mismanagement of the plan, now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit under docket number 24‑2866, argued on January 28, 2026.At the lower‑court level in the District of New Jersey, participants and beneficiaries in the Quest Diagnostics Profit Sharing Plan sued Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the Quest Benefits Administration Committee, and the Quest Investment Committee, alleging that these fiduciaries breached their duties of prudence and loyalty under ERISA by keeping underperforming, overly expensive investment options in the plan, permitting excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees, and failing to adequately disclose investment risks and expenses to participants. The district court denied an early motion to dismiss in May 2021, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged plan‑wide fiduciary breaches and that the named plaintiffs had standing to sue on behalf of the plan, so the case proceeded through discovery. After discovery, in September 2024, U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals granted summary judgment to Quest and its committees, finding that the undisputed evidence showed a prudent fiduciary process for selecting and monitoring the 401(k) investment options and thus rejecting the excessive‑fee and imprudence claims, denying class certification and dismissing the case with prejudice.In the present court, the Third Circuit appeal (captioned Lawanda House Johnson et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. et al., No. 24‑2866) was filed on December 4, 2024, by former employees and plan participants challenging Judge Neals’s summary‑judgment ruling, arguing that the district court improperly weighed contested evidence and expert testimony and prematurely resolved factual disputes about the adequacy of Quest’s fiduciary monitoring process. Oral argument took place on January 28, 2026, with the panel reportedly pressing Quest’s counsel on whether summary judgment was appropriate given the plaintiffs’ evidence about underperformance, fees, and alleged deficiencies in the fiduciaries’ review of the plan’s investment lineup.