It can be argued, however, that the true test of bias may well be seen in cases that arise in more complex, arcane areas. One such case is Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640 (2010). The case arose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and involved the narrow question of whether a court must defer to the decision of an ERISA fiduciary, who has already been found to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding the same issue. In deciding this narrow question, the conservative majority arguably ignored or misconstrued precedent to reach a decision that severely curtails the rights of participants in benefit plans.
In 1989, the Supreme Court enunciated the principle that a reviewing court must defer to a plan administrator’s decision if the plan provides the administrator with discretion to interpret the plan and that discretion is not abused. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989). In fashioning this remedy, the Court looked to principles of trusts law for guidance, noting that a trustee was accorded deference under similar circumstances.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]