October Term 2010 · Docket 09-804
Does a misleading summary plan description allow employees to claim lost pension benefits?
Employees claim Cigna’s inaccurate pension summary caused them to lose benefits. Cigna argues the summary does not change the actual plan terms.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Theodore Olson argued Congress created a specific enforcement scheme for ERISA violations.
Olson stated the opposing sides seek equitable remedies for misleading summaries, not direct benefit recovery.
Kneedler argued pension benefits are a major component of employee compensation.
Bruce argued detrimental reliance is not found in the ERISA summary requirement section.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-16 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 4-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 4-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 8-10
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a summary document can override the formal pension plan. Employees rely on the summary to claim lost money. Cigna insists the formal plan controls all benefits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Employees want a court order requiring Cigna to pay the pension benefits they lost due to the misleading summary.
Cigna wants the court to reject the claim that the summary changed the plan and deny the lost benefit payments.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
What each side says
Employees argue the summary created a binding promise that Cigna must honor to prevent unfair loss of compensation.
Cigna argues the summary is merely informational and cannot legally amend the formal plan document that governs benefits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked whether items in the summary must exist in the formal plan to be valid.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the lower court treated the summary as an amendment or just a description of the plan.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-16 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 4-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 4-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 8-10
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether employees can recover lost pension money based on a summary document. It defines the legal weight of plan summaries versus formal plan documents. It affects how companies communicate benefit changes to workers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 44-46 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 44-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-16 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-32 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 16-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 16-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 4-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 4-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-50 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 8-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 8-10
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 30-6 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 30-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 8-26 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 8-26
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.