X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Judge Glasser http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=56968 PLAINTIFF ALLEGED entitlement to benefits under a defined pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Participants could receive benefits at age 65, even while staying employed. A 1989 amendment barred employees receiving benefits from continued employment with plaintiff’s employer. Defendant plan administrator sought dismissal, arguing that plaintiff’s failure to file an application complying with procedures outlined in the plan description constituted a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted defendant summary judgment, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the futility doctrine excused him from the exhaustion requirement. Citing Davenport v. Harry N. Abrams Inc., it ruled that the exchange of certain letters as to alleged unfair administration of the plan established neither an application for nor administrative denial of benefits and thus did not support a finding of futility.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.