Photo of Sydney Juliano

Sydney Juliano

Subscribe to Sydney Juliano's Posts

Sydney L. Juliano is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where she focuses on ERISA Litigation.

Sydney works on a variety of ERISA litigation matters, including fee- and investment-related breach of fiduciary duty claims, benefit claims, and claims by trustees of multiemployer plans for withdrawal liability and delinquent contributions. Sydney is also a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Compensation & Benefits Blog.

Sydney maintains an active pro bono practice, including representing clients in immigration and family court matters.

Sydney received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was an Articles Editor of the Journal of Law and Politics and Director of Coaching for the Extramural Moot Court team.  While at UVA, she worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida.

Contact:Read more about Sydney Juliano

When an employer withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan, its maximum annual payment is based on all contributions it was required to remit to the plan.  In SuperValu Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Pension Fund, 155 F.4th 913 (7th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed that…

In Perfection Bakeries Inc. v. Retail Wholesale & Dep’t Store Int’l Union & Indus. Pension Fund, No. 23-12533, 147 F.4th 1314 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that an employer’s credit for a prior partial withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan must be applied at the second step of the four-step statutory…

A federal district court in Illinois became the first court to rule that an employer’s credit for a prior partial withdrawal should be applied at the end of the statute’s “waterfall” for calculating withdrawal liability.  The case is Consumers Concrete Corp. v. Central States, S.E. and S.W. Areas Pension Fund, Nos. 23-cv-2695 & 23-cv-3005…

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cunningham v. Cornell University that plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements for pleading prohibited party-in interest transactions under ERISA section 406(a) without alleging facts disproving the availability of a statutory exemption for such transactions, such as where no more than reasonable compensation is paid for necessary services. No. 23-1007 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2025). As a result, plaintiffs may be able to withstand motions to dismiss such claims even where the underlying pleadings are found insufficient to sustain a fiduciary breach claim based on the same conduct. Recognizing the risks posed by potentially frivolous claims proceeding into discovery, the Supreme Court coupled its ruling with specific advice as to how district courts can mitigate these risks.