United States Supreme Court Employment Law Cases 

          All pending employment law cases - click here

After CIGNA converted its traditional defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance plan, it issued a summary plan description (SPD) to plan participants. Amara brought a class action claiming that CIGNA failed to comply with ERISA's notice requirements and SPD provisions. The trial court held for Amara; the 2nd Circuit affirmed. The finding was that the SPD misrepresented the terms of the plan itself. Although CIGNA argued that the plaintiffs failed to show injury, the court found that the participants had shown "likely harm" and that CIGNA had failed to establish harmless error. 

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 2nd Circuit judgment. 

Case below: Amara v. CIGNA Corp (2nd Cir 10/06/2009); Amara v. Cigna Corp, 534 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008).  
Official docket sheet  
Certiorari granted:. June 28, 2010. Justice Sotomayor took no part. 
Oral argument: To be scheduled, probably late 2010. 

Questions presented:   

Whether a showing of “likely harm” is sufficient to entitle participants in or beneficiaries of an ERISA plan to recover benefits based on an alleged inconsistency between the explanation of benefits in the Summary Plan Description or similar disclosure and the terms of the plan itself.