February Roundup: A Botched Beneficiary Change, and a Discrimination Claim That Didn't Make It Past the Pleadings
Impossibile aggiungere al carrello
Rimozione dalla Lista desideri non riuscita.
Non è stato possibile aggiungere il titolo alla Libreria
Non è stato possibile seguire il Podcast
Esecuzione del comando Non seguire più non riuscita
February Roundup: A Botched Beneficiary Change, and a Discrimination Claim That Didn't Make It Past the Pleadings
-
Letto da:
-
Di:
A proposito di questo titolo
Show Notes:
Hosts Kian Hudson and Mark Crandley examine two recent Seventh Circuit decisions that clarify critical pleading and compliance standards.
Cases Discussed:
Packing Corporation of America Thrift Plan v. Dina Langdon
When a divorced employee sends a fax requesting a beneficiary change but dies before submitting the proper forms, who gets the retirement benefits—the ex-wife or the estate? The court addresses whether the "substantial compliance" doctrine survives recent Supreme Court precedent and draws a bright line: good intentions aren't enough if you don't follow the plan's procedures.
Miao v. United Airlines
After being removed from a flight following a dispute over overhead bin space, a passenger alleges racial discrimination. The court tackles a fundamental question: when is differential treatment enough to get past a motion to dismiss? The answer reveals the high bar discrimination plaintiffs face at the pleading stage, even when they identify a comparator.