| Free Trial / Sign Up | Products / Prices / Samples | About Us / Contact | FAQs | Home |
|
Latest employment law cases Summaries and links to full text |
|
Emailed directly to you and online all the time |
| Latest Cases | Key Word Search | Law Firm Directory | Arbitrator Directory | Law School Directory | Legal Resources / Memos |
| Employment Law Memo |
| Arbitration Law Memo |
| NLRB Law Memo |
| Employment Law Blog |
| Arbitration Law Blog |
| Employment Law 101 |
| Articles |
| Supreme Court Cases |
| EEOC Info |
| NLRB Info |
|
United States Supreme Court Employment Law Cases
All pending employment law cases - click here |
Conkright v.
Frommert (08-810)
ERISA: Deferral to plan administrator;
scope of appellate review
|
Xerox
employees sued their ERISA retirement Plan and administrator challenging the
method used by the Plan to calculate how their current benefits are offset to
reflect prior distributions. The employees claimed that the Plan violated
ERISA's provisions relating to summary plan description, notice, and
anti-cutback rules. There were two appeals to the 2nd Circuit. In the first
appeal, the court held that the Plan had violated ERISA in several respects, and
remanded for fashioning a remedy. On remand, the district court decided upon a
remedy without first remanding the case to the Plan administrator.
In the second appeal, the 2nd Circuit made
two key rulings: (1) The district court was not required to defer to the Plan
administrator's views on the appropriate remedy for the ERISA violations
committed by the administrator and the Plan; (2) The court of appeals should
review the district court's remedial decision for abuse of discretion. The US
Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 2nd Circuit's judgment.
[The Supreme Court denied
two other petitions for certiorari arising out of the 2nd Circuit decision.
Those petitions involved the effect of general releases as waivers of ERISA
claims.]
Case below: Frommert
v. Conkright, 535 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir 07/24/2008)
Question presented:
1. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with decisions of this
Court and other Circuits, that a district court has no obligation to defer to an ERISA
plan administrator's reasonable interpretation of the terms of the plan if the plan
administrator arrived at its interpretation outside the context of an administrative
claim for benefits. 2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with decisions of other
Circuits, that a district court has "allowable discretion" to adopt any "reasonable"
interpretation of the terms of an ERISA plan when the plan interpretation issue
arises in the course of calculating additional benefits due under the plan as a result
of an ERISA violation.
Certiorari Documents:
Briefs on the merits:
Counsel:
|
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
