Conley v. Pitney Bowes
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
34 F.3d 714 (1994)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In Conley’s (plaintiff) employment contract with Pitney Bowes (defendant), Conley was required to exhaust all administrative procedures before bringing suit against Pitney Bowes on an ERISA claim. However, the contract also provided that any notice of denial of Conley’s benefits must also include instructions about the appeal procedures. Pitney Bowes sent Conley a letter denying his benefits, but the letter did not contain any information about appeal procedures, including the requirement of exhaustion of administrative procedures. Without exhausting administrative appeal procedures, Conley brought suit against Pitney Bowes, claiming improper denial of benefits. The district court awarded summary judgment to Pitney Bowes, ruling that Conley had a summary plan book and so must have known of the administrative procedures. Conley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Arnold, J.)
Dissent (Gibson, S.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.