A legal fight that once looked dead in the water is now very much afloat again. The Eleventh Circuit reversed a win for Royal Caribbean on Monday in a lawsuit brought by cruise ship workers who say shoddy target-date investment funds sank a chunk of their retirement savings, ruling that a lower court jumped the gun in siding with the company.

The Ruling in Brief

A three-judge panel handed down a 14-page published opinion reversing and remanding the ERISA lawsuit, which was brought by a class of participants in the 401(k) plan covering employees of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. The decision effectively reopens a case that many assumed had already reached its final port.

How the Case Began

Former Royal Caribbean employee and 401(k) plan participant Ann Johnson filed the lawsuit in 2021, accusing the cruise line and its investment committee — along with its former investment manager, Russell Investments Trust Co. — of breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA by keeping a lineup of proprietary Russell target-date funds embedded in employees’ retirement plans. A class was certified in the case back in 2024.

Where the Lower Court Went Wrong

The appellate panel found that a Florida federal judge erred in January 2025 when he granted summary judgment to Royal Caribbean and Russell on the ERISA fiduciary breach claims. That earlier ruling had faulted the workers for not presenting strong enough evidence of an imprudent investment process — specifically criticizing their attempt to compare the challenged Russell funds against what they argued were better-managed alternatives, calling those comparisons insufficient.

A Different Standard for Proving Imprudence

The Eleventh Circuit wasn’t persuaded that such comparisons were even necessary in every case. “An ERISA plaintiff need not identify an apples-to-apples comparison to establish objective imprudence in every case,” the panel wrote, noting that Johnson’s argument centered on something more fundamental: that the very features setting the Russell target-date funds apart from otherwise similar options were themselves what made the funds an objectively poor investment choice.

The panel added that while plaintiffs may lean on apples-to-apples comparisons in some cases, nothing requires it as a universal rule — a distinction that reopens the door for Johnson’s claims to be evaluated on their own terms.

What Happens Next

With the case sent back down, the panel instructed the district court to weigh the full evidentiary record on the question of objective imprudence — a broader mandate than the narrower comparison-based analysis the lower court had originally applied.