Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Next ERISA Supreme Court Case
Going unnoticed in all the hub-bub surrounding the Ricci decision was the fact that the Court granted cert. in another important ERISA case concerning the deference due to plan administrators in Section 502(a)(1)(B) denial of benefit cases.
Peter Stris, a professor at Whittier Law School and partner at his own firm, will argue the case for the Plaintiffs/Respondents in Conkright v. Frommert. Here is a description of the case from a press release Peter issued today:
“Xerox wrongfully under-calculated the pensions of hundreds of individuals,” noted Stris. “About that there is no dispute. The fight is over the remedy. Xerox argues that it should decide how much money the plaintiffs get, and that its determination must receive deference from the courts.” Stris continued: “There is no language in ERISA that supports Xerox—which is not surprising. The explicit purpose of the law is to protect pensioners. Xerox’s argument has no natural end: employers with vast resources could insist on endless attempts to re-calculate pensions. And because ERISA does not permit the recovery of punitive damages, these employers could effectively tie up retirees everywhere in litigation forever. This litigation, which has continued for a decade, illustrates the very point. If the Supreme Court accepts the position urged by Xerox, no one’s pension will be safe.”
The case will likely be argued next Term in December or January. I am in the process of drafting an amicus brief for law professors in support of Respondents. Any interested law professors should contact me ([email protected]) if they are interested in joinging the brief.
PS
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2009/07/the-next-erisa-supreme-court-case.html
Comments
I have a question about Xerox' ERISA policy administration. Xerox Plan does NOT permit periodic withdrawals from the 401K plan, by those who left after twenty years service and had NOT attained age 55. They do allow periodic withdrawals by those who retire after age fifty five with 20 years service. I contend that this is not permissable under ERISA law and does not provide a benefit to benficiaries of the plan as required. It may provide a benefit to Xerox Corporation, which is NOT permitted under the law. Am I correct in that this is a violation of ERISA?
Posted by: joelpalmer | Dec 23, 2009 11:02:41 AM
"If the Supreme Court accepts the position urged by Xerox, no one’s pension will be safe.”
What is the SCOTUS record when it comes to uphold protections of working people?
Just asking...
Posted by: Frankie | Jul 7, 2009 10:55:21 AM