No. 24-61

Michael Cloud v. The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-19
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (3)Response Waived
Tags: circuit-split civil-rights de-novo-review deference deferential-standard due-process erisa plan-administrator procedural-violation procedural-violations standard-of-review
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA SocialSecurity JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether significant procedural violations of ERISA require de novo review, strict adherence, or some other heightened standard that does not defer to Plan administrators absent harmless procedural irregularities

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, the Court set forth the standard of review for denials of benefits provided by employers under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). While de novo review was the standard, the Court held, where plan documents grant deferential authority to administrators, the standard shifts to an abuse of discretion. Subsequent decisions by the Court clarified how to weigh factors like an ERISA plan’s conflict of interest in administering and funding benefits and reinforced the deference owed to an administrator’s interpretation of plan terms, but the Court has not weighed in on the deference, if any, owed to significant procedural violations. As a result, there is an entrenched conflict within the circuit courts, with the Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit employing a strict adherence standard and default de novo review, respectively, where such violations are found, the Eleventh Circuit treating procedural violations as a matter of statutory and regulatory compliance as a matter of law that must be reviewed de novo, and the Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and other circuits maintaining a more deferential substantial compliance review. To resolve these issues, the questions presented are: 1. Whether significant procedural violations of ERISA require de novo review, strict adherence, or some other heightened standard that does not defer to Plan administrators absent harmless procedural irregularities. ii 2. If Firestone‘s holding applies to significant procedural violations by an ERISA plan administrator, whether Firestone should be reconsidered. iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Cloud v. The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, No. 22-10710 (5th Cir.) (judgment entered October 6, 2023 and revised on March 15, 2024). Cloud v. The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1277-S (N.D. Tex.) (judgment entered June 27, 2022).

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-08-19
Amicus brief of Professional Football Wives for Change submitted.
2024-08-19
Amicus brief of United Policyholders submitted.
2024-08-19
Brief amici curiae of Advocacy for Fairness in Sports and Professor Roger Baron filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-19
Brief amicus curiae of Professional Football Wives for Change filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-19
2024-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-08-12
Waiver of The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan of right to respond submitted.
2024-08-12
Waiver of right of respondent The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan to respond filed.
2024-07-15
2024-05-20
Application (23A1021) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 13, 2024.
2024-05-14
Application (23A1021) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 13, 2024 to August 12, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Advocacy for Fairness in Sports and Professor Roger Baron
Luke Aaron SchamelYetter Coleman LLP, Amicus
Michael Cloud
Christian Stephen DennieDennie Firm, PLLC, Petitioner
Professional Football Wives for Change
Katari Dawn BuckAsiatico & Associates, PLLC, Amicus
The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan
Pratik Arvind ShahAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Respondent
United Policyholders
Elizabeth HopkinsKantor & Kantor, LLP, Amicus