Kagan’s Brief on Attorneys’ Fees in ERISA Case

In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., an employee had worked at a textile manufacturer and participated in a long-term group disability insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and a host of other impediments, the employee applied for benefits under the plan. The plan administrator denied the employee’s request for long-term benefits.

A federal district court reviewed the decision. The court not only found that the administrator was wrong about benefits but that the employee was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court reversed the district court, finding that the employee wasn’t a “prevailing party” under ERISA and, therefore, couldn’t recover attorneys’ fees.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues presented for review were (1) whether ERISA permits courts to award attorneys’ fees only to a prevailing party and (2) whether a benefits claimant like the employee can recover attorneys’ under ERISA when an district court finds that the administrator has violated ERISA and orders the administrator to re-determine the employee’s claim and ultimately decides that the employee is entitled to the benefits sought.

When Elena Kagan filed her brief with the Court as Solicitor General, she supported the employee’s position. She argued that ERISA omits a strict “prevailing party” requirement. As an alternative argument, she contended that even if the Court should find that this requirement exists, the employee would qualify as a “prevailing party” under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the employee, thus siding with the arguments Kagan had made.

For other posts on Kagan, click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.