CORBITT v. TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Corbitt v. Trustees of Princeton University

What Happened

An employee sued Princeton University over a retirement benefits dispute. The core issue involved a "subrogation provision"—a rule allowing the university to recover money it paid for medical expenses from any settlement the employee received. The employee argued this rule was invalid because it appeared only in a summary document given to employees, not in the official plan itself.

What the Court Decided

The court made a mixed ruling. It dismissed part of the case, rejecting the employee's argument that he hadn't properly exhausted internal complaint procedures first. However, the court allowed his main claim to move forward—that the rule was unenforceable because of where it was located in the paperwork.

Why This Matters

This ruling protects workers by suggesting that important plan rules must be clearly stated in official documents, not hidden in supplementary materials. Employers cannot rely solely on summary sheets to enforce restrictions on employee benefits. Workers should carefully review all official plan documents and speak up if key terms appear inconsistent between different paperwork.