George W. Mathias v. United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, et al.

Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., “to protect * * * the interests of participants in employee benefit plans,” safeguarding their rights with “appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.” 29 U.S.C. 1001(b). Congress sought to secure that “ready access” with a liberal venue provision. This provision guarantees plan beneficiaries a specific choice to bring suit in any of three venues: “where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found.” 29 U.S.C. 1132(e)(2). Petitioner (who is 72, severely disabled, and has 10 years of formal education) filed suit in Pennsylvania as expressly authorized by that provision. But respondents moved to transfer his suit under the plan’s forum-selection clause; unlike ERISA’s broad venue rights, this clause restricts all suits to “the Central District of Illinois,” a location over 700 miles away. The Pennsylvania district court granted the transfer, and both the Illinois district court and a divided Seventh Circuit (over the vigorous objection of the United States Department of Labor) refused to retransfer the case to its initial location. The question presented is whether a contractual forum-selection clause purporting to override ERISA’s venue provision is invalid and unenforceable. (I) 231015.1