Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP

09/03/2026

Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight has filed a $168 million class action complaint against CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. and its fiduciaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit is on behalf of the CGI Technologies retirement plan and its participants and alleges that CGI violated their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to remove a poorly performing fund in its retirement savings plan for more than a decade.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that CGI failed to remove the Columbia Trust Focused Large Cap Growth Institutional 100 Fund from the Plan despite persistent, long-term underperformance since its introduction to the Plan in 2014. From 2014 to February 17, 2025, the Columbia Fund underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, by about 228%. From September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2026, the Columbia Fund lagged the Russell 1000 Growth by more than 61%, or over 7% annually. As a result of this process, the Complaint alleges CGI’s plan lost over $168,000,000 relative to what it could have earned in another fund that only matched the investment returns of the Russell 1000 Growth.

Under ERISA, plan fiduciaries have a duty to monitor investment options and remove funds that consistently underperform. The complaint asserts that a prudent fiduciary would have removed this fund years ago.

Our Financial Services Litigation Practice Group, led by Co-Vice Chairman Charles Field and Nashville Managing Partner Leigh Anne St. Charles, has brought similar cases against UnitedHealth, General Electric, Walgreens, and Transamerica — recovering more than $150 million for plan participants.

If you are a current or former CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. employee with questions about your retirement plan, reach out. All inquiries are confidential.

Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, filed a $168 Million Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. and its fiduciaries violated ERISA by keeping a poorly performing fund in its retirement savings plan for more than a deca...

08/20/2026

We are thrilled to announce that 13 attorneys across our New York, DC, Nashville, and La Jolla offices have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America!

For more than four decades, The Best Lawyers in America has been one of the legal profession’s most respected peer-reviewed distinctions, recognizing attorneys based on the confidential evaluations of their fellow lawyers. The 2027 edition represents the 33rd edition of the publication, with recognition limited to a highly selective group of legal professionals across the United States.

The Best Lawyers in America – 2027
Congratulations to Christine Dunn, H. Vincent McKnight Jr., John McKnight, Kate Mueting, David Sanford, and Kevin H. Sharp on this well-deserved recognition.

Our attorneys were recognized across several practice areas, including Employment Law – Individuals, Litigation – Labor and Employment, Qui Tam Law, and Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs.

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America – 2027
We are equally proud to celebrate Cara Van Dorn, Ting Cheung, Kate MacMullin, Alok Nadig, Nicole Wiitala, Jonathan Tepe, and Kasi Wautlet on their recognition.

Their recognition spans Labor and Employment Law – Employee and Litigation – Labor and Employment, reflecting the exceptional work they do on behalf of employees and workers.

We extend our heartfelt congratulations to all of our recognized attorneys! These honors reflect their outstanding legal skill, dedication to their clients, and commitment to advancing justice. We are incredibly proud to have them on our team and look forward to celebrating this achievement with them.

08/10/2026

An insurance plan can cover fertility treatment and still make it impossible for same-sex couples to qualify.

That is the allegation at the center of Kulwicki v. Aetna. Tara Kulwicki, a le***an nurse, was denied IUI precertification because she could not meet her plan’s definition of “infertile” — a year of unprotected heterosexual in*******se or twelve cycles of artificial insemination. The plan defined “unprotected sex” as exclusively between a man and a woman, so same-sex couples had no way to satisfy the definition. Kulwicki thus faced thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs for treatment before qualifying for coverage.

Aetna has tried to get Kulwicki’s case dismissed, but in September 2025, the court denied Aetna's motion to dismiss, finding factual disputes with Aetna's role in writing the plan’s definition. Kulwicki's class action is proceeding.

Meanwhile, 53% of LGBTQ+ adults live in states with no private-insurer fertility mandate, and a single IVF cycle can run past $18,000 in out-of-pocket costs.

Ting Cheung, Isabelle Megosh, and Lily Miller wrote about what Kulwicki’s case and similar cases mean for LGBTQ+ workers on Washington Blade: https://www.washingtonblade.com/2026/08/07/opinion-pregnant-workers-discrimination/.

03/02/2026

Christine Dunn, Co-Managing Partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight’s Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Sexual Violence, Title IX, and Victims’ Rights Practice Group, outlines the legal rights and options available to military sexual assault survivors in the National Crime Victim Law Institute's latest “Rights & Remedies” blog.

Sexual assault remains a pervasive issue within the U.S. armed forces. The Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2024 report documented 8,195 reported cases involving service members, and given that sexual assault is often unreported, the actual number is likely much greater.

Victims may file either a restricted report, which remains confidential and does not trigger an investigation, or an unrestricted report, which initiates a formal investigation and notifies the chain of command. Throughout this process, survivors have enumerated rights under DoD directives, including protection, notice, presence at hearings, and fair treatment, and are entitled to a Special Victims’ Counsel. Dunn notes that civil claims against individual perpetrators or institutions are possible, though significantly constrained by the Feres doctrine, which limits active-duty members’ ability to sue the government for harms connected to military service.

Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight has extensive experience representing many service members who have been sexually assaulted and has experienced firsthand how complex the legal landscape can be for military survivors. It’s important for service members to understand their rights and what options they have for seeking justice and accountability.

Read the full blog article here:

By: Christine Dunn