The determination of whether a named plaintiff in a
class action has Article III standing to bring claims on
behalf of others has been addressed by the circuit courts
through two divergent approaches:

(1) the "class certification" approach where a plaintiff
need only establish standing as to his or her
own claims, and the commonality and typicality
prongs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 supplant
traditional Article III analysis; and

(2) the "standing" approach where a plaintiff must
establish standing not only as to his or her
own claims but also the claims of absent class
members before turning to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

These conflicting approaches to determining standing
in class actions create uncertainty for employers and
service providers, as well as district and circuit courts.

The two questions presented are:

I. Whether the "standing" approach or the "class
certification" approach is the proper test for
determining Article III standing in class actions.

II. Whether, under the "standing" approach, named
plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring
claims on behalf of absent class members who
participated in other unrelated plans, sponsored
by separate, unrelated employers, and who did
not participate in the named plaintiffs' employer's
retirement or health plan.

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the circuit split on the proper approach to determining Article III standing in class action lawsuits