IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HEIDE K. BARTNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 2020 CV 2127 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, MARLON 

SULLIVAN and ALIGHT SOLUTIONS, 

LLC, 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Defendants. 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Heide K. Bartnett (“Bartnett”), by her attorneys, for her First Amended Complaint 

against Defendants Abbott Laboratories, Marlon Sullivan and Alight Solutions, LLC (collectively 

“Defendants”), states as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This case arises from Defendants’ reckless actions in allowing an unknown 

individual to prey on and steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the retirement savings of the 

Plaintiff, Heide Bartnett, a retired former employee of Abbott Laboratories, which were held in 

Abbott Corporate Benefits Stock Retirement Plan (the “Plan”). Ms. Bartnett is a participant in the 

Plan. Defendants failed to enforce a security question routine set up for security purposes on the 

Defendants’ website, www.abbottbenefits.com, and instead simply provided a one-time code overthe-phone that was used to loot Ms. Bartnett’s account. Then, rather than communicating with 

Ms. Bartnett via email concerning changes to her account, as Defendants knew Ms. Bartnett 

preferred, they mailed notices, allowing the theft to be consummated and $245,000 to be 

transferred out of the country via email to an Indian IP address before Ms. Bartnett could take any 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:300
- 2 - 

steps to halt the fraud. Through these acts and omissions, Defendants breached their fiduciary 

duty to Ms. Bartnett under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). 

Ms. Bartnett brings this lawsuit to require Defendants to restore her lost assets and investment 

income, as well as her attorneys’ fees and costs. 

THE PARTIES AND THE PLAN 

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Heide Bartnett has been a participant in the Plan— a 

401(k) savings plan regulated and subject to ERISA. 

3. Defendant Abbott Laboratories is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of 

business in Abbott Park, Illinois, with net sales in 2018 of more than $30.5 billion. Abbott 

Laboratories functions as a Plan Sponsor of the Stock Retirement Plan and is a fiduciary of the 

Plan within the meaning of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(21), in that it exercises authority or control 

respecting management or disposition of the Stock Retirement Plan’s assets, it exercises 

discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of the Plan, and/or it has 

discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of the Plan. 

4. Marlon Sullivan is the named Plan Administrator and the Named Sponsor of the 

Plan. As named Plan Administrator, Mr. Sullivan is a fiduciary of the Plan. 

5. Alight Solutions LLC (“Alight”) is an Illinois limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Lincolnshire, Illinois. At all relevant times, Alight provided contract 

administration, record-keeping, information management, and benefit plan administration services 

for the Plan pursuant to an agreement between Alight and Abbott Laboratories. At all relevant 

times, Alight was a fiduciary of the Plan within the meaning of ERISA 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21), in 

that it exercised authority or control respecting management or disposition of the Plan’s assets, it 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:301
- 3 - 

exercised discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of the Plan, 

and/or it had discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of the 

Plan. Upon information and belief, Alight operated the Plan’s telephone customer service center, 

identifying itself as “Abbott Benefits Center,” and website at www.abbottbenefits.com. Both of 

these resources provided Plan participants the ability to manage their accounts, including 

requesting distribution of benefits. Upon information and belief, Alight exercised control over 

Plan assets by directing distributions from participants’ accounts, including the unauthorized 

distributions it allowed from Ms. Bartnett’s account. 

6. On information and belief, Alight maintained a computer log on which all computer 

and telephone inquiries concerning a Plan account are maintained and to which all call center 

representatives can routinely access. 

7. Employees of Abbott Laboratories may enroll immediately in the Plan after joining 

Abbott Laboratories, and Plan participants are vested in any company contributions after two years 

of service. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims in Count I pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the specific jurisdictional statute for claims brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(e) and (f).

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count II 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as Count II is so related to the claim in Count I that it forms part 

of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:302
- 4 - 

10. Venue lies within the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(e)(2), because the Plan is administered in part in this District and the breaches alleged herein 

occurred in part in this District. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. Ms. Bartnett’s Stock Retirement Plan Account. 

11. Ms. Bartnett is a retired former-employee of Abbott Laboratories, having worked 

for Abbott Laboratories from 2002 – 2012 in a sales capacity. 

12. As a former employee of Abbott Laboratories, Ms. Bartnett participated in the Plan. 

When she retired as an Abbott Laboratories employee, Ms. Bartnett chose to leave her retirement 

savings in the Plan in reliance on Defendants’ ability to maintain and safeguard her Plan account.

13. As of December 31, 2018, the Plan had net assets of $9,424,709,000.

14. Ms. Bartnett was able to access her Plan account via www.abbottbenefits.com, a 

website maintained by Alight.

15. Ms. Bartnett’s preferred delivery method for communication with Defendants is via 

email. 

16. Ms. Bartnett did not share her account password with any individual other than 

Thomas R. Bartnett, her husband and primary beneficiary of Ms. Bartnett’s Plan account assets.

17. Over the course of her employment, Ms. Bartnett contributed funds to her Plan. 

18. As a vested participant in the Plan, Ms. Bartnett continued to receive periodic Plan 

account statements and notifications by mail. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:303
- 5 - 

19. As of December 31, 2018, Ms. Bartnett had a total of $362,510.84 in her Plan 

account. A true and accurate copy of Ms. Bartnett’s account statement as of December 31, 2018, 

is attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Bartnett’s assets in her Plan account were her primary retirement 

savings. 

20. Ms. Bartnett trusted and relied on the promises and expertise of the Defendants to 

keep her Plan assets secure. 

21. For example, the abbottbenefits.com website states: 

SUPPORTING EMPLOYEES & FAMILIES IN ALL THEIR 

WORK & LIFE MOMENTS 

When it comes to your family, your health and your life, we care for 

employees while they’re here at Abbott and beyond. We strive to 

provide peace of mind for all the moments of your life – with health 

care benefits, programs and resources that build confidence in your 

ability to take care of yourself and your family. 

22. Similarly, Alight’s website assured its beneficiaries that: 

From chatbots, robotic process automation (RPA), mobile-first to 

consumer-centric service models, we are committed to investing in 

innovations that benefit all of our clients. 

23. Alight also advertises itself on its website as providing the following services for 

employees whose benefits are managed by Alight: 

 “Full range of technology-enabled plan solutions, from innovative 

online and digital technologies to customer care to financial 

wellbeing strategies and services designed to understand and 

support each employees' goals and needs;” 

 “A robust retire online plan website, featuring everything your 

people need to help manage their plan—plan reporting, benefit 

calculation, and retirement income estimating and modeling, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:304
- 6 - 

including decision-support tools and financial education and 

planning information”; and 

 “Retirement Specialist support through our Service Center, who 

serve as a single point of contact to help your employees through all 

phases of retirement, offering knowledge and support for Social 

Security, Medicare and other common retirement question.” 

B. Defendants Permit Ms. Bartnett’s Stock Plan Account to Be Looted. 

24. On or about December 29, 2018, at 10:56 PM Central Time, an unknown user 

accessed Ms. Bartnett’s account via the internet, and chose the “forgot password” option. 

25. The unknown user entered the last four digits of Ms. Bartnett’s social security 

number and her date of birth. These entries were challenged by the website. 

26. The unknown user elected to receive a one-time-code via e-email, allegedly to Ms. 

Bartnett’s email account, rather than answer online security questions. Ms. Bartnett has no record 

of ever receiving such an email. 

27. The one-time-code was successfully entered and access to the account was granted. 

The unknown user changed the password and added to the account direct deposit information for 

a SunTrust bank account. 

28. Two days later, on December 31, 2018, an unknown individual (the 

“Impersonator”) contacted the Abbott Benefits Center, claiming to be Ms. Bartnett. The 

Impersonator called from the phone number 360-956-0666, which did not belong to Ms. Bartnett, 

had never been used by Ms. Bartnett, and was not associated with Ms. Bartnett’s Plan account. 

29. The Impersonator told the customer service representative that they had tried to 

process a distribution online, but were unsuccessful. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:305
- 7 - 

30. Defendants’ customer service representative, in a gross dereliction of duty, asked 

the Impersonator if they still lived at XXXX Sweetbriar, Darien, Illinois, XXXXX, thereby 

providing Ms. Bartnett’s personal information to the Impersonator. The customer service 

representative told the Impersonator that a new bank account that has been added to the customer’s 

account, such as the SunTrust Bank account, must be on file for seven days before money can be 

transferred from the Plan account to the newly added account. 

31. The customer service representative offered to schedule a call with “Heide” for 

Monday. The Impersonator declined the offer, saying “I’ll be busy all day Monday.” The 

customer service representative told the Impersonator that the Impersonator could go online and 

initiate the direct deposit on Monday. 

32. On January 1, 2019, Defendants, despite Ms. Bartnett’s preferred method of 

communication being via email, “snail mailed” a “Direct Deposit Address Addition” notice to Ms. 

Bartnett, advising her of the change made to her direct deposit access to her account. Defendants 

failed to send Ms. Bartnett an email advising her of the change. Had Defendants done this, Ms. 

Bartnett would have had an opportunity to question the addition of the SunTrust Bank account 

before any unauthorized withdrawals were made from her Plan account. 

33. On January 4, 2019, Ms. Bartnett’s husband attempted to access Ms. Bartnett’s 

account, but was unable to, as Ms. Bartnett’s password had been changed by the unknown 

individual. Mr. Bartnett properly answered the security question asked by the site and changed 

her account password. At this point, no funds had been transferred. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:306
- 8 - 

34. Following this change, that same day, Defendants followed Ms. Bartnett’s direction 

as to her preferred method of communication and sent an email to her account advising her of the 

password change. 

35. On January 8, 2019, at approximately 7:54 AM, the Impersonator called the Abbott 

Benefits Center, again claiming to be Ms. Bartnett. As before, the Impersonator used the same 

phone number, beginning with a 360 area code. Once again, this phone number is not associated 

with Ms. Bartnett’s Plan account or with Ms. Bartnett. 

36. Rather than requiring the Impersonator to answer Ms. Bartnett’s online security 

questions, Defendants simply sent another one-time code, allegedly to Ms. Bartnett’s email 

address. The Bartnetts have no record of ever receiving this emailed one-time code. 

37. The Impersonator inquired about a transfer of funds, claiming it was needed for 

purchasing a house. 

38. At that time, upon the Impersonator’s request, Defendants authorized $245,000 to 

be transferred from Ms. Bartnett’s account to the SunTrust Bank account. Ms. Bartnett did not 

authorize this transfer and she did not have a SunTrust Bank account. 

39. On January 9, 2019, Defendants sent a letter via first class U.S. Mail to Ms. 

Bartnett, advising her of the transfer of funds. Once again, they failed to communicate with Ms. 

Bartnett via her preferred email communication method about the withdrawal. Ms. Bartnett did 

not receive this letter until January 14, 2019. Had Defendants communicated information to Ms. 

Bartnett via email, she would have been able to halt the transfer and would have stopped the 

transfer. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:307
- 9 - 

40. Also on January 9, 2019, Defendants received two additional calls from the 

Impersonator. The Impersonator asked for the current balance of the Plan account, and asked if the 

funds had been sent to the Impersonator’s bank. Defendants’ customer service representative 

reported that that the transfer request had been processed, and that the funds would be transferred 

on January 14, 2019. 

41. On that same call, Defendants’ customer service representative again provided the 

impersonator with Ms. Bartnett’s address. 

42. On January 15, 2019, Ms. Bartnett called Abbott Benefits Center to report that she 

had discovered that money was missing from her Plan account. Defendants froze the account at 

this time. 

43. Defendants advised Ms. Bartnett to contact police and she did so. 

44. After Ms. Bartnett reported the theft from her account, Detective Rick Hellmann of 

the Darien Police Department sent subpoenas to “Abbott Benefits,” Northern Trust Bank, and 

SunTrust Bank, requesting all records related to Ms. Bartnett’s Plan account and the January 2019 

transfer therefrom to be sent to the Darien Police Department in written form. 

45. On March 14, 2019, SunTrust Bank responded to the subpoena. The response 

stated that based on the information provided, SunTrust was unable to locate records for the 

account holder. 

46. On March 22, 2019, DuPage County States’ Attorney Elizabeth Giesel received 

subpoena results from Alight, including a report of its internal investigation. This internal report 

provides the details of the allegations in paragraphs 26 – 43 of this Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:308
- 10 - 

47. On March 26, 2019, Detective Hellmann received subpoena results from Abbott 

Laboratories. 

48. On March 27, 2019, Detective Hellmann investigated the I.P. address 

172.82.144.204, from which Ms. Bartnett’s account had been accessed. After running this I.P. 

address through Maxmind, a law enforcement database, Detective Hellmann found it to be 

registered to Quickpacket LLC. Detective Hellmann sent a subpoena to Ms. Giesel, a DuPage 

County States’ Attorney, to be served on Quickpacket in an attempt to obtain information as to 

who this I.P. address is assigned to. 

49. On April 2, 2019, Detective Hellmann received an email from Ms. Giesel, 

containing the subpoena results from Quickpacket. The email stated that the I.P. address was 

assigned to Kirtan Singh, living in the city of Panta, in the state of Bihar, in the country of India. 

B. Prior Incidents of Unauthorized Distributions under Alight’s Watch 

50. Defendants knew or should have known of the possibility of individuals attempting 

to make, and/or successfully making, unauthorized withdrawals from retirement plans that they 

oversaw or managed, due to prior similar incidents. 

51. Prior to 2017, Alight was known as Aon Hewitt. 

52. In 2013, Aon Hewitt was targeted by an international cybercrime ring, which used 

unlawful means to obtain customer login information to access customer accounts and steal 

millions of dollars from several financial institutions as outlined in the criminal complaint styled 

U.S. v. Sarapka, et al., No. 13-6089 (D.N.J. June 13, 2013). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:309
- 11 - 

53. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, in 2015, Aon Hewitt suffered a 

data breach in which, due to a manual mailing error, clients’ names, dates of birth, Social Security 

Numbers, and pension specific information (such as average salary, service, and accrued benefits) 

were sent to an unintended recipient. 

54. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, in 2015, Aon Hewitt issued a data 

breach notification informing plan participants that it had inadvertently allowed certain 

participants in a benefits program to access fellow participants’ Social Security numbers. 

55. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, in 2016, Aon Hewitt issued a data 

breach notification in which it allowed for the potential unauthorized access to the records of 2,892 

individuals where the personal information potentially accessed by an unknown third person or 

persons included participants’ names, Social Security numbers, contact information, dates of birth, 

beneficiary information, employee ID numbers, employment status, and health care plan status. 

56. In September and October of 2016, Alight was alleged to have allowed an 

unauthorized user to initiate three separate unauthorized transfers totaling $99,000 from a 401(k) 

retirement account for which Alight provided benefit plan administration services, including 

operating the plan’s online services. After the employee’s efforts in 2016 and 2017 to have her 

employer and Alight investigate the unauthorized transfers failed and after Alight and the former 

employer failed to reimburse the employee for the stolen funds, Alight was sued in federal district 

court in the case styled Berman v. Estee Lauder, et. al., Case No. 3:19-cv-06489 (N.D. Cal.). In 

that case, plaintiff asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty for Alight’s failure to confirm 

authorization for distributions with the plan participant before making distributions and for general 

security lapses involving the failure to provide timely notice of distributions, failure to identify 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:310
- 12 - 

and halt suspicious distribution requests, and failure to establish distribution processes to safeguard 

plan assets against unauthorized withdrawals. Further, according to the complaint filed in that 

action, in 2016, plaintiff reported the stolen assets to her local police departments as well as to the 

FBI. 

57. Upon resolution of the lawsuit, an Alight spokesperson informed the media that 

Alight takes data security and protection of accounts seriously and is committed to maintaining a 

competitive, innovative approach to fraud prevention as threats evolved. Alight further 

communicated that it regularly communicates with its clients about its policies and practices. 

58. In 2019, Alight issued a Breach Notification to the California Attorney General 

stating that since September 22, 2014, Alight had issued communications to certain benefit plan 

participants that inadvertently included their Social Security Numbers in the properties of the 

emails. Another Alight Breach Notification issued to the California Attorney General further 

indicated that from October 1, 2016 to February 22, 2019, URLs linking to certain of Alight’s 

benefits websites included individual participants’ Social Security Numbers and dates of birth. 

59. Upon information and belief, the United States Department of Labor is currently 

investigating Alight for additional failures with respect to the improper processing of unauthorized 

distributions as a result of cybersecurity breaches related to ERISA plan clients’ accounts, and, in 

violation of its service provider agreements, failing to immediately report cybersecurity breaches 

and the related unauthorized distributions to ERISA plan clients after its discoveries. 

60. In light of the increased risk related to data security and cybersecurity fraud, many 

plan sponsors and service providers provide security guarantees that pledge to reimburse 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:311
- 13 - 

participants for losses from unauthorized transactions contingent upon additional security 

measures. Alight does not provide such a guarantee. 

61. Upon information and belief Abbott Laboratories and Sullivan were, or should have 

been, aware of Alight’s demonstrated inability to prevent unauthorized access to Plan participants’ 

information and/or unauthorized transfers of Plan funds. 

62. Despite prior instances of data breaches and unauthorized transfers, as well as 

Alight’s practices that led to a Department of Labor investigation, along with Alight’s general lax 

attitude toward data security, Sullivan and Abbott Laboratories continued to allow Alight to 

provide benefit plan administrative services. 

C. Ms. Bartnett Unsuccessfully Attempts to Resolve the Theft of Her Funds with 

Abbott Laboratories. 

63. Following her initial January 15, 2019 phone call to Abbott Benefits Center, Ms. 

Bartnett continued to call several times per week, hoping that Defendants would be able to retrieve 

or return the funds looted from her account. 

64. Ms. Bartnett also was referred to an Abbott Laboratories attorney, Shauna 

Fulbright-Paxton (“Shauna”). On January 31, Ms. Bartnett’s attorney, Bernard Lord, sent a 

demand letter to Abbott Benefits Center, to which Shauna responded. That response contained no 

guaranties that Ms. Bartnett’s would be made whole. 

65. Between February and September 2019, Ms. Bartnett spoke with Eric, Christine, 

Stephany and Martin in Abbott Benefits Center. All she learned was that $48,991 had been 

recovered as the taxes withheld from the fraudulent withdrawal, which had been returned to her 

account. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:312
- 14 - 

66. On April 6, 2019, Ms. Bartnett received a mailed statement from SunTrust Bank 

stating that $59,494.02 had been recovered and deposited into her account. 

67. On April 15, 2019, Martin from Abbott Benefits Center called and told Ms. Bartnett 

that she had received back all that she was going to receive from Abbott. 

68. On April 16, 2020, Mr. Lord contacted Shauna regarding this determination. 

Shauna stated that “[t]his is a legal matter and the person who provided information has no 

authority to speak on the ultimate resolution. This is with Legal. I’m going to track down more as 

soon as I can but please rest assured that resolution rests me my team [sic].” 

69. Between approximately March 2019 and September 2019, Ms. Bartnett’s attorney, 

Bernard Lord, communicated regularly with Shauna. For example, on or about July 26, 2019, Mr. 

Lord received an email from Shauna stating she was waiting to hear more from “the powers that 

be” at Abbott Laboratories regarding a resolution. 

70. On August 1, 2019, Shauna sent Mr. Lord another email stating that one of the 

individuals in the decision chain was dealing with an emergency in another matter. 

71. The next day, Mr. Lord informed Shauna that Ms. Bartnett had the Darien Police 

Department records and that he had listened to the recordings, which did not show Defendants in 

a positive light. Shauna asked if she could receive a copy of records from the Darien Police 

Department. 

72. During this time, on information and belief, Shauna had or should have had access 

to Alight’s investigative report, including recordings of the relevant calls from the Impersonator 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:313
- 15 - 

which described Defendants’ errors and omissions in transferring $245,000 from Ms. Bartnett’s 

Plan account to the SunTrust Bank account without Ms. Bartnett’s authorization. 

73. On or about August 15, 2019, Mr. Lord provided copies of Darien Police 

Department records to Shauna and a call was set for August 21, 2019. However, on August 21, 

2019, Shauna postponed the call until August 27, 2019. 

74. During the August 27, 2019 telephone call, Shauna again provided no information 

other than to say that the person who would make the decision was out of the country, but she did 

not identify that person. 

75. Shauna told Mr. Lord that she would call him on August 29, 2019. Shauna did not 

call that day, and thereafter there was no meaningful communication between Abbott Benefits 

Center or Abbott Laboratories and Ms. Bartnett or Mr. Lord until December 2019. 

76. In or about December 2019, Abbott Laboratories contacted Mr. Lord and made a 

take-it-or-leave-it offer to restore just 10% of the funds that had been stolen from Ms. Bartnett’s 

Plan account, an unsatisfactory resolution for Ms. Bartnett in light of all the circumstances. 

77. At no time did Shauna advise Ms. Bartnett or Mr. Lord that Ms. Bartnett should file 

an administrative appeal related to the theft from her Plan account or identify any individual to 

whom Ms. Bartnett or Mr. Lord could appeal. 

78. Given the history of the negotiations, any administrative appeal would be futile. 

Moreover, Ms. Bartnett’s months-long attempt to resolve the theft of her funds with Abbott 

Laboratories’ attorney served any purpose of an administrative review. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:314
- 16 - 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

Count I 

Claim to Restore Plan Losses Pursuant to ERISA §§ 409 and 

502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132(a)(2) Against All Defendants 

79. Ms. Bartnett realleges paragraphs 1-67. 

80. ERISA imposes fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, as well as a fiduciary duty 

to monitor. 

81. ERISA § 409, 29 U.S.C. § 1109, provides that any person who is a fiduciary with 

respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon 

fiduciaries by ERISA Title I shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the 

plan resulting from each such breach, and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief 

as the court may deem appropriate. 

82. ERISA § 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), authorizes a plan participant to bring 

an action for appropriate relief under ERISA § 409, 29 U.S.C. §1109. 

83. Alight breached its fiduciary duties by causing, allowing, or processing 

unauthorized distributions of Ms. Bartnett’s Plan account assets; failing to confirm authorizations 

for distributions with Ms. Bartnett before making distributions; failing to provide timely notice of 

distributions to Ms. Bartnett by telephone or email; failing to identify and halt suspicious 

distribution requests, such as requests for multiple distributions to accounts in different banks; 

failing to establish distribution processes to safeguard the Plan’s assets against unauthorized 

withdrawals; failing to monitor distribution processes, protocols, and activities; and related acts 

and omissions. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:315
- 17 - 

84. Alight failed to use the care, skill, prudence, and diligence required of an ERISA 

Plan fiduciary under the circumstances to protect Ms. Bartnett’s Plan assets. 

85. Abbott Laboratories breached its fiduciary duties by hiring and failing to monitor 

service provider Alight, despite Alight lacking experience with retirement plans, Alight’s inability 

and failure to provide quality plan administration services, Alight’s inadequate policies and 

practices, recent litigation and/or enforcement actions against Alight, and Alight’s poor 

performance record, all of which caused the damages suffered by Ms. Bartnett. 

86. Abbott Laboratories breached its fiduciary duties by renewing its contract with 

Alight despite information regarding Alight’s failures with respect to cybersecurity and data 

privacy, which Abbott Laboratories knew or should have known of, all of which caused the 

damages suffered by Ms. Bartnett. 

87. Marlon Sullivan breached his fiduciary duties by allowing Abbott Laboratories to 

hire Alight and failing to monitor service provider Alight, despite Alight lacking experience with 

retirement plans, Alight’s inability and failure to provide quality plan administration services, 

Alight’s inadequate policies and practices, recent litigation and/or enforcement actions against 

Alight, and Alight’s poor performance record, all of which caused the damages suffered by Ms. 

Bartnett. 

88. Marlon Sullivan breached his fiduciary duties by allowing Abbott Laboratories to 

renew its contract with Alight despite information regarding Alight’s failures with respect to 

cybersecurity and data privacy, which Marlon Sullivan and Abbott Laboratories knew or should 

have known of, all of which caused the damages suffered by Ms. Bartnett. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:316
- 18 - 

89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty 

described above, Ms. Bartnett has been damaged, including the loss of $245,000 from Ms. 

Bartnett’s 401K account and investment earnings thereon. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

FOR RELIEF, Plaintiff Ms. Bartnett requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor 

and against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, as to Count I and: 

(a) Declare that Defendants, and each of them, have breached their fiduciary 

duties of loyalty and prudence; 

(b) Order that Defendants, and each of them, restore to Ms. Bartnett’s Stock 

Retirement Plan account $245,000, plus reasonable investment earnings 

thereon from the distribution dates to the date of judgment herein and 

reimburse Ms. Bartnett for federal tax liability and penalties and interest 

thereon caused by the unauthorized withdrawal from her Plan account; 

(c) Award Ms. Bartnett reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred 

herein pursuant to ERISA § 502(g), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g); 

(d) Award Ms. Bartnett pre-and post-judgment interest; and 

(e) Provide such other equitable and remedial relief as is appropriate. 

Count II 

Breach of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive 

Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.) by Alight 

90. Ms. Bartnett realleges paragraphs 1-74. 

91. Alight represents that its services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, in 

that it promotes itself as an entity capable of safeguarding the assets of any employee whose 

retirement plan is maintained by Alight. 

92. Alight’s public representations are made with the intent that employers and 

employees will utilize Alight’s services to administer and protect their retirement fund assets, and 

in turn, Alight will be financially compensated for administering retirement plans. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:317
- 19 - 

93. Alight’s representations regarding its ability to manage plan assets were false, 

misleading and/or unfair, in the following ways: 

(a) Failing to send Ms. Bartnett email notifications of the transactions leading 

to the unauthorized withdrawal of $245,000 from her Plan account; 

(b) Failing to adequately train call center representatives how to address 

multiple calls from a phone number not associated with an account; 

(c) Failing to train call center representatives to escalate calls from numbers not 

associated with an account when they lead to a request for a withdrawal of 

eighty-eight (88) percent of liquid funds in a Plan account; 

(d) Failing to train call center representatives to ask for rather than volunteer 

participants’ personal information to callers; and 

(e) Failing to implement adequate security measures aimed at preventing 

unauthorized transfers from Plan participants’ accounts and training call 

center representatives how to spot suspicious telephone transactions and 

report such suspicious transactions to supervisors and immediately notify 

participants thereof by email or telephone. 

94. Alight’s failure to institute measures which adequately protected Ms. Bartnett’s 

assets, Alight’s public representations as to their ability to manage plan assets constitute an unfair 

act or practice. 

95. These representations occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or 

commerce. 

96. Ms. Bartnett has suffered actual damages due to the plaintiff’s unfair acts, in that 

she relied upon Alight’s representations that Alight would protect her Plan assets, she allowed 

Alight to administer her Plan assets, and that Alight failed to protect her Plan assets. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

FOR RELIEF, Plaintiff Ms. Bartnett requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor 

and against Alight as to Count II, award her damages of at least $245,000 plus the amount required 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:318
- 20 - 

to pay federal and state tax liability plus any penalties and interest thereon, punitive damages, pre 

and post judgment interest, her costs and such further relief as is appropriate. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury with respect to Count II. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HEIDE BARTNETT

By: /s/ Todd A. Rowden 

One of Her Attorneys 

Todd A. Rowden (trowden@taftlaw.com) 

James L. Oakley (joakley@taftlaw.com) 

Donnell J. Bell (dbell@taftlaw.com) 

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 

111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 

Chicago, IL, 60601 

Phone No.: (312) 527-4000 

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 54 Filed: 10/23/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:319