Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn
United States Supreme Court
554 U.S. 105, 128 S. Ct. 2343, 171 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2008)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Wanda Glenn (plaintiff) worked for Sears, Roebuck & Company (Sears). Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) (defendant) was both the administrator and insurer of Sears’s long-term disability-insurance plan. As the plan administrator, MetLife was vested with discretionary authority to determine whether employees’ claims for benefits were valid. Glenn applied for benefits under the plan after developing a heart condition. MetLife found that Glenn satisfied the plan’s standard for an initial 24 months of benefits because she was unable to perform the material duties of her job. MetLife also referred Glenn to a law firm to assist her with applying for Social Security disability benefits because she was unable to work. The Social Security Administration (SSA) awarded Glenn benefits after determining that her medical condition rendered her incapable of performing not only her own job but any job for which she could qualify that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. The award of federal benefits entitled MetLife to an offset against the plan’s more generous benefits. To continue receiving the additional benefits available under the Sears plan after the initial 24-month term, Glenn had to meet a slightly stricter standard and demonstrate that her condition prevented her from performing her own job and the material duties of any gainful occupation for which she was reasonably qualified. MetLife denied the extended benefits after determining that Glenn could perform full-time sedentary work. Glenn sought judicial review of MetLife’s benefit denial under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district court denied relief, and the court of appeals reversed. MetLife petitioned for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Roberts, C.J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.