Conkright v. Frommert

The Supreme Court case Conkright v. Frommert "which addresses whether a court must continue to give deference to a plan administrator's interpretation of a pension plan after the first interpretation has been found to be arbitrary and capricious under Firestone." See Workplace Prof Blog.

You can download an amicus caraie brief by a group of law professors who support the employees plaintiffs, here.

Note that one of the keywords is Mark DeBofsky, who teaches ERISA Litigation at Marshall.

Excerpt from the SSRN page:
"Amici curiae law professors filed this brief to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and not to import inappropriate administrative law deference principles into ERISA denial of benefit claims under Section 502(a)(1)(B).

The brief argues that the Court should reject Petitioners' effort to engage in serial attempts to reinterpret its pension plan and also reject Petitioners' attempt to introduce administrative law deference into the ERISA benefit claims process. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the language and intent of ERISA and Supreme Court precedent.

Keywords: ERISA, Section 502(a)(1)(B), deference, benefits, denial of benefits, reinterpretation, administrative law, Donald Bogan, Mark DeBofsky"