CIGNA Corp. v. Amara
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 30, 2010
|May 16, 2011||8-0||Breyer||OT 2010|
Holding: Although the district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, it did have authority to do so under another provision, Section 502(a)(3). (Sotomayor, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: Courts may order changes to the terms of a pension plan to remedy false or otherwise unlawful disclosures by the plan to the plan participants.
Judgment: Second Circuit vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 16, 2011. Justices Scalia and Thomas concurred in the judgment only. (Sotomayor, J., recused).
- This week at the Court: In Plain English (Lisa McElroy)
- Opinion analysis: CIGNA v. Amara (Emily Curran)
- New curb on Bivens remedy? (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument recap: Determining proper remedies under ERISA (Jason Steed)
- Argument preview: Does proof of likely harm justify relief under ERISA? (Anna Christensen)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioners Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan
- Brief for Respondent Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan
- Brief for AARP in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States of America in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the National Employment Lawyers Assocation, the Pension Rights Center, and United Policyholders in Support of Respondent
- Petition for certiorari (09-804) (unavailable)
- Brief in opposition (09-804) (unavailable)
- Petitioners’ reply (09-804)
- Supplemental brief of Amara (in both cases) (unavailable)
- Supplemental brief of Cigna (in both cases) (unavailable)