W. v. The Northern Trust Company Employee Welfare Benefit Plan

N.D. Ill.June 24, 2019No. 1:18-cv-00327

Mixed ResultNorthern Trust Company

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: summary judgment
State: Illinois
Circuit: Seventh Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Blue Cross prevailed on the claim that its April 28, 2016 denial decision was arbitrary and capricious under ERISA, but the plaintiff may proceed on claims regarding subsequent denials and the plan's definition of medical necessity.

What This Ruling Means

**Employee Loses Fight Over Denied Benefits** This case involved an employee (identified only as "W.") who sued The Northern Trust Company's employee welfare benefit plan after being denied certain benefits. The employee claimed the company wrongfully refused to provide benefits they believed they were entitled to under their workplace benefit plan. The federal court in Illinois dismissed the case entirely, meaning the employee lost and received no money or benefits. The court did not award any damages to the worker. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling highlights how challenging it can be for employees to successfully challenge benefit denials in court. When employers deny benefits through their employee benefit plans, workers have the right to sue, but winning these cases is often difficult. The courts typically give employers and their benefit plan administrators significant discretion in making benefit decisions. For workers, this case serves as a reminder to carefully review benefit plan documents, understand exactly what benefits are covered, and follow all proper procedures when filing benefit claims. If benefits are denied, employees should consider getting help from an employment attorney who specializes in benefit disputes before going to court, as these cases involve complex federal laws governing employee benefits.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Failure to Accommodate cases

D.C. CircuitJul 1997

Remanded

People in re S.L. and A.L

COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win

Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County

9th CircuitSep 2003

Plaintiff Win

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab

Read Full Opinion More Northern Trust Company Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.