A federal judge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has denied a motion to transfer the venue of a claim brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

A participant in BP Corp.’s retirement plan sued the company, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., to recover denied benefits from a life insurance policy. The plaintiff worked for the oil company in Southern Illinois until her retirement.

Related: Case against small plan sponsor voluntarily withdrawn

Her claim was brought in the Northern District of Illinois in 2015. BP Corp. filed a motion to move that venue earlier this year, citing a venue selection clause in its retirement plan, which stated the “only proper venue for any person to bring a suit against the plan or to recover benefits shall be in federal court in Harris County, Texas,” home of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Related: Your 401(k) fees are attracting more attention from lawyers

BP Corp.’s U.S. headquarter is in Houston, Texas, where the company administers its retirement plan.

Attorneys for the plaintiff argued that BP plan’s venue provision “is contrary to the plain language" of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's venue provision and that it contradicts the act's statutory intent.

ERISA explicitly states one of the law’s primary purposes is “to protect the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries by providing for ready access to the federal courts.”

The plaintiff also alleged the forum selection clause was not included in the summary plan document, and therefore never disclosed.

In denying BP’s motion to have the case moved to Texas, Judge Ruben Castillo added to the body of conflicted case law on the validity of venue selection provisions in employer-sponsored benefit plans.

Most courts have upheld venue selection clauses, the judge noted in his decision, while others have found them to be in conflict with ERISA’s intention to give plan participants unfettered access to federal courts.

The dissenting rulings can be explained, in part, by ERISA’s language on venue selection, which says claims “may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found,” according to the law.

No clear guidance

The U.S. Department of Labor has not issued formal guidance on venue selection clauses, though the agency has filed three relatively recent amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs’ claims that the clauses conflict with the spirit, intention and letter of ERISA.

In its motion, BP argued that restricting the venue to one of the options listed in ERISA — “where the plan is administered” — means its clause was consistent with the law. The company also argued its provision was “plain and unambiguous.”

Courts that have allowed sponsors’ venue selection clauses have relied on the word “may” in their decisions, and reasoned that because ERISA does not explicitly preclude the clauses, sponsors are within their right to limit where claims against them may be filed, Castillo explained in his ruling.

Castillo takes issue with that reasoning. While ERISA does not unambiguously preclude forum selection clauses, “neither does it unambiguously state that parties are entitled to restrict the venue options provided” under the law, Castillo wrote.

He also cited a 1987 decision in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the enforceability of a venue selection clause in a plan sponsored by Gulf Life Insurance Co.

“The sword that Congress intended participants to wield in asserting their rights could instead be turned against those whom it was designed to aid,” ruled the 11th Circuit in Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Arnold.

In his decision, Castillo wrote, “forcing the plaintiff to litigate her claim in an inconvenient location seems hardly consistent with ERISA’s purpose of removing procedural obstacles that have hampered effective enforcement of fiduciary duties.”