We're taking Cushman & Wakefield to court to change that.
Attorney
4 March 2026
Most of us work hard, put money aside with each paycheck, and trust it will be there when we retire. But for some workers, that trust is being quietly betrayed.
That is why ClientEarth USA is taking Cushman & Wakefield US Inc to court. Instead of safeguarding its workers’ futures, the commercial real estate giant is funneling their retirement savings into a high-risk fund packed with coal-powered utilities and other businesses that are highly vulnerable to climate disruption. Our case alleges Cushman & Wakefield never evaluated whether those funds left workers' savings exposed to climate-related financial risk.
Publicly, the company acknowledges that climate change is a threat to its own business and has taken steps to cut that risk. It even offers expert advice and how-to guides to clients on managing climate risks. Yet it has failed to shield its workers’ retirement accounts in the same way, leaving their savings exposed to the very climate dangers it has warned its shareholders and clients about.
But this case is bigger than one employer or one industry. Americans hold more than $12 trillion in retirement savings accounts like 401(k)s, and these nest eggs could be exposed to companies and industries which are particularly vulnerable to climate disruption. This is notwithstanding that the world's leading financial authorities have warned that climate change poses a material risk to financial stability.
And climate risk extends far beyond just fossil fuel stocks that are likely to lose value as the world moves away from 19th-century fuels like oil and gas. It’s a broad interconnected threat that touches huge parts of the economy. Bank shares can suffer when high-carbon loans go bad. Energy utilities face mounting costs from extreme weather. Companies whose supply chains run through drought-prone or flood-prone regions are already absorbing losses. These are real risks, documented by mainstream financial analysts, that can drag down the value of retirement plans.
We have seen this before. In the early 2000s, Wall Street piled into high-risk subprime mortgages, allowing risk to accumulate within investment portfolios, until the global economy buckled and people lost homes, jobs and savings.
Climate risk is the new subprime – it can likewise accumulate and materialize through physical events, regulatory developments, or market shifts, which could result in sudden, devastating losses.. This means some investments that are meant to provide for retirement security stand to plummet in value as climate impacts worsen. Left unchecked, the fallout could be devastating.
This is not some distant threat. The fuse on this ticking time bomb has already burned down in many regions. Right now, hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves are eroding the savings of Americans whose retirement funds are tied to high-risk regions or companies unprepared for the mounting costs of climate disruption.
A win in our case against Cushman & Wakefield could help change that. It would set a far-reaching precedent, requiring those responsible for safeguarding American retirement savings to take seriously the financial risk posed by climate change when they plan retirement portfolios.
When contacted by reporters, Cushman & Wakefield declined to comment.
Employers have a legal duty to ensure that the retirement fund options they offer to their workers are properly vetted for all major financial risks. The complaint alleges that by offering employees the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund, Cushman & Wakefield breached that duty. The fund explicitly disclaims any climate risk analysis in its methodology, has consistently underperformed its benchmark, lagging by 17% in 2025 — and charges higher fees than comparable options. Despite these warning signs, the company continued to offer it to workers.
The court has the power to order Cushman & Wakefield to reimburse the retirement plan for losses caused by its failure to adequately monitor these risks. The court can also order the firm to fix its process going forward. Crucially, a ruling like this would send a signal to employers across the US. It would establish a legal precedent that ignoring climate risk is a liability.
The plaintiff is a former Cushman & Wakefield employee who participated in the company's 401(k) plan and invested retirement savings in the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund. Like thousands of colleagues, she trusted the company to offer retirement options that had been properly vetted for financial risk. This lawsuit seeks to hold her former employer accountable for its betrayal of that trust.
Cushman & Wakefield has publicly acknowledged that climate change poses a material financial risk to its own business operations and has taken steps to protect its balance sheet accordingly. It even positions itself as an expert in climate risk, offering advice and how-to guides to clients on how to manage it. Yet the company failed to apply that same risk analysis to its employees' retirement savings. This case asks a simple question: if climate-related financial risk is serious enough to manage for the company, why wasn't it serious enough to manage for the workers? That the company saw climate risk as an opportunity to sell climate resilience advisory services to its clients makes the failure to protect workers from the same risks all the more egregious.
As of December 31, 2024, the company’s 401(k) plan covers approximately 23,448 employees, with $1.7 billion in assets under management.
Climate risk is the financial risk created by the real-world impacts of climate change. That includes stronger storms, rising temperatures, floods and wildfires. It also includes changing insurance markets, new regulations, supply-chain disruptions, and the damage and downtime when extreme weather destroys buildings, equipment, and infrastructure.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a U.S. law that sets basic rules for how workplace retirement and health benefit plans must be run, with the core goal of protecting workers’ money. It requires employers and the companies that manage long-term savings vehicles like 401(k)s to act in employees’ best financial interests, to manage plans prudently, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to clearly disclose fees and risks. If plan administrators violate these duties, ERISA gives workers the right to sue to recover losses and hold those decision-makers accountable.
The plaintiff is represented by ClientEarth USA and Cohen Milstein, a plaintiffs’ law firm.
This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle.