From Schism to Prism: Equitable Relief in Employee Benefit Plans

Abstract

Denials of relief for even clear violations of statutory protections have left some injured benefit plan participants and beneficiaries without compensation and failed to provide appropriate incentives for compliance. Many of the remedial failures can be traced to a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case, which narrowly construed the relevant statute's provision for appropriate equitable relief. I argue that since 2002, the Supreme Court slowly and subtly has been shifting its approach to equitable relief in benefits cases. Because the Court's development of the remedial jurisprudence has been subtle and incremental, neither lower courts nor scholars have fully recognized the shift. I rely on theoretical approaches to equity, scholarly commentary across fields of law, and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence to consider the definition of appropriate equitable relief. I then articulate a detailed analysis for use in determining when appropriate equable relief should be available in benefits cases. Applying the analysis to three important categories of benefits cases shows that, properly interpreted, the Employee Retirement Income Act's provision for appropriate equitable relief is neither so unconstrained as to threaten the viability of benefit plans nor so pinched as to deny remedies for rights granted by the statute.