The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has long been seen as the most liberal federal appeals court—and very employee-friendly. Could that slowly be changing?
The court sided with employers in this recent Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case.
Recent case: Bruce Anderson worked as a mechanic for most of his life until he injured his knee in a shop accident. Later, he was diagnosed with arthritis and claimed he couldn’t work.
He filed a claim for disability retirement from the Teamsters Union. Plan administrators concluded that Anderson’s disability started later than he claimed, which considerably cut his monthly pay.
He appealed, alleging a conflict of interest, since employers funded the plan and employer representatives participated in decisions. The court rejected the claim, reasoning that employee representatives helped make the decision, too. (Anderson v. Suburban Teamsters, No. 07-15532, 9th Cir., 2009)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- DOL proclaims EFAST2 is up and running
- Ease pain of health benefits cuts with less costly perks
- DIY health care reform: Create inexpensive, effective wellness programs
- Can the company 'profit' from the share of health premiums charged to employees?