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.
