Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1989

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch

489 U.S. 101 | 109 S. Ct. 948 | 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 | 1989 U.S. LEXIS 599 | 57 U.S.L.W. 4194

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Firestone established ERISA's default rule of de novo review for benefit denials, with deferential review only when the plan expressly grants discretion, and it confined disclosure rights to statutory participants rather than all benefit claimants.

Background

Firestone sold its Plastics Division to Occidental Petroleum in 1980. Most of the approximately 500 salaried employees at the five plants, including the six named respondents, were immediately rehired by Occidental in the same jobs and at the same pay. Firestone maintained an unfunded termination-pay plan, retirement plan, and stock-purchase plan; Firestone itself was the administrator and fiduciary of those plans.

The termination-pay plan provided benefits to employees whose service ended before pension eligibility if they were released because of a reduction in force or became unable to perform their jobs. The respondents claimed that the sale of the division amounted to a reduction in force and sought severance pay. They also requested plan information under ERISA. Firestone denied both requests, concluding that the sale was not a reduction in force and that the former employees were no longer plan participants entitled to disclosures.

The District Court granted summary judgment for Firestone. It reviewed the benefit denial under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard and found Firestone's interpretation permissible. It also held that respondents were neither participants nor beneficiaries when they requested information. The Third Circuit reversed. It required de novo review because Firestone was both employer and administrator of an unfunded plan, and it held that persons claiming benefits could seek plan information. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a court reviewing an ERISA § 1132(a)(1)(B) action challenging a denial of benefits based on plan interpretation should apply an arbitrary-and-capricious standard or de novo review.

Holding

A denial of benefits is reviewed de novo unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe plan terms.

Reasoning

ERISA does not itself specify a standard of review for benefit-denial suits under § 1132(a)(1)(B). Although many lower courts had borrowed arbitrary-and-capricious review from cases under the Labor Management Relations Act, that analogy was incomplete. Under the LMRA, the standard had served largely as a jurisdictional device because the statute did not expressly authorize suits by beneficiaries challenging trustee decisions. ERISA, by contrast, expressly creates causes of action against administrators and fiduciaries, so that jurisdictional rationale does not carry over.

The Court turned instead to trust-law principles, which ERISA's text and legislative history incorporate. Trust law gives deference when the trust instrument grants a trustee discretionary power, including power to interpret uncertain terms. But absent such a grant, courts construe the terms of a trust instrument for themselves, just as they ordinarily construe contractual language without deferring to either party's interpretation.

Firestone's termination-pay plan did not grant the administrator authority to interpret ambiguous provisions or make eligibility decisions conclusively. Firestone could not obtain deferential review merely because ERISA fiduciaries exercise some discretionary authority in managing a plan. A person is a fiduciary only to the extent that the person exercises discretionary authority; ERISA does not make every administrative decision discretionary.

De novo review also preserves the protection employees had before ERISA, when courts generally resolved benefit disputes under ordinary contract principles unless a plan expressly conferred final interpretive authority on the employer. The Court rejected the argument that later congressional inaction on a proposed de novo-review amendment demonstrated approval of arbitrary-and-capricious review.

The Court did not base its rule on Firestone's dual role as employer and administrator or on whether the plan was funded. Those facts do not determine the standard of review. If a plan does confer discretionary authority, however, an administrator's conflict of interest remains a factor in deciding whether the administrator abused that discretion.

Issue #2

Whether former employees who claim benefits are automatically ERISA “participants” entitled to obtain plan documents and seek disclosure penalties under §§ 1024(b)(4) and 1132(c).

Holding

No. A claimant is a participant only if the claimant is in, or reasonably expected to be in, covered employment; has a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment; or has a colorable claim to vested benefits or to future satisfaction of eligibility requirements.

Reasoning

ERISA requires administrators to furnish specified plan documents upon written request by a “participant” or beneficiary, and permits discretionary daily penalties for an administrator's failure to comply. The statutory definition does not extend that right to every person who merely asserts a claim. Reading “participant” to mean anyone who claims participant status would make Congress's detailed definition largely superfluous.

The natural reading of the statute covers current employees in, or reasonably expected to enter, covered employment, as well as certain former employees. A former employee qualifies if the employee reasonably expects to return to covered employment or has a colorable claim to vested benefits. To show that one “may become eligible,” a claimant must have a colorable claim either to prevail in a benefits action or to fulfill the plan's eligibility requirements in the future.

This reading does not defeat ERISA's disclosure purpose of allowing participants to know where they stand under the plan. Because refusal can expose an administrator to daily penalties, a rational administrator will ordinarily provide documents when there is genuine doubt about participant status, and may recover reasonable copying costs.

Neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court decided whether these respondents satisfied the proper participant definition for the particular plans at issue. The Court remanded that application of the standard to the lower courts.

Concurrences

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia joined the Court's judgment and its analysis of the standard of review, but disagreed with part of the majority's explanation of participant status. In his view, the phrase “may become eligible” refers to someone who may acquire eligibility in the future, in the same way that someone who “is” eligible possesses eligibility now. It does not refer to the chance that a court might later rule in the claimant's favor.

Under that reading, participant status includes persons whose benefits have vested and persons who may become vested through current or former employment. It does not include a person whose benefits have not vested but who has a strong legal argument that they should be treated as vested. Justice Scalia thought this interpretation better followed the statutory language, while producing much the same practical incentive for employers to disclose information when entitlement is uncertain.