The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court judgment in favor of Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, bringing closure to a class action lawsuit that has spanned more than 26 years. The court issued an unpublished opinion on Jan. 16, 2026, in *Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan*, affirming the lower court's ruling without requiring a published decision.

Jamal Kifafi originally filed the class action complaint on June 17, 1998, alleging that Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. The lawsuit sought to represent all similarly situated employees who claimed they were harmed by alleged violations of federal retirement benefit laws.

The case has experienced a complex procedural history spanning multiple decades. Initially, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of Kifafi and the class members. In a 2009 decision, the district court concluded that defendants violated ERISA's anti-backloading and vesting provisions, which are designed to protect employees' retirement benefits and ensure fair accumulation of pension rights.

Following the district court's findings of ERISA violations, the court entered a permanent injunction on Aug. 31, 2011, requiring defendants to remedy the identified violations. The injunction represented a significant victory for the plaintiff class, as it mandated specific corrective actions to address the retirement plan deficiencies.

However, the case continued through the appeals process. The D.C. Circuit initially affirmed the district court's decision finding ERISA violations and upholding the permanent injunction. This earlier appellate ruling seemed to solidify the plaintiff class's victory and validate their claims about improper retirement plan administration.

The current appeal, docketed as No. 25-7053, represents the latest chapter in this protracted litigation. The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Cornelia Pillard and Gregory Katsas, along with Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph. The court heard oral arguments and considered briefs from both parties before reaching its decision.

In its unpublished opinion, the D.C. Circuit determined that the issues presented did not warrant a published decision, citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 36 and D.C. Circuit Rule 36(d). This procedural notation suggests the court viewed the legal questions as settled or not requiring precedential guidance for future cases.

The appeals court's affirmance of the district court judgment represents a reversal of fortune for the original plaintiff class. While the specific grounds for the district court's ultimate judgment in favor of Hilton are not detailed in the available court documents, the affirmance suggests that subsequent legal developments or procedural rulings favored the defendants.

ERISA class actions often involve complex questions about retirement plan administration, benefit calculations, and compliance with federal vesting requirements. The anti-backloading provisions that were central to the original lawsuit are designed to prevent employers from structuring benefit accruals in ways that unfairly disadvantage employees who leave before retirement age.

Vesting provisions, meanwhile, establish the timeline and conditions under which employees gain non-forfeitable rights to their pension benefits. Violations of these provisions can result in significant financial harm to affected employees, particularly those with long service periods who depend on retirement benefits for financial security.

The extraordinary length of this litigation highlights the challenges inherent in complex ERISA class actions. Such cases often involve extensive discovery, expert testimony on actuarial calculations, and detailed analysis of plan documents and administrative practices spanning many years.

For employment law practitioners, the case underscores the importance of thorough documentation and compliance with ERISA's technical requirements. Retirement plan administrators must carefully structure benefit formulas and vesting schedules to comply with federal standards designed to protect employee interests.

The affirmance also demonstrates the D.C. Circuit's willingness to review lower court decisions thoroughly, even in cases where initial rulings favored plaintiffs. The court's ultimate determination suggests that despite early victories for the plaintiff class, subsequent legal developments supported the defendants' position.

While the specific monetary impact of the litigation remains unclear from the available documents, ERISA class actions of this duration and complexity typically involve substantial potential damages and attorney fees. The resolution provides certainty for both the retirement plan and affected employees after more than two decades of uncertainty.

The case's conclusion also reflects the evolving landscape of ERISA litigation and the courts' approach to retirement benefit disputes. As workplace retirement plans continue to evolve, this long-running case serves as a reminder of the importance of careful plan design and administration to avoid protracted legal challenges.

With the D.C. Circuit's affirmance, the parties can finally move forward after 26 years of litigation, though the specific terms of any final resolution remain to be implemented according to the district court's judgment.