Gleason v. Unum Group

Background

The lawsuit involves two claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Gleason’s first claim arises under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), which allows a plan participant to seek benefits due under an employee-sponsored plan. She alleges that Unum terminated her long-term-disability benefits despite lingering cognitive impairments following chemotherapy.

Her second claim arises under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), which allows a plan participant to seek equitable relief—such as an injunction—to address, among other things, a plan administrator’s breach of fiduciary duties. Gleason alleges that Unum consciously sought to terminate her benefits so it could meet monthly claim-closure targets. Among other requested remedies, she seeks an injunction barring Unum from serving as a plan fiduciary and from distributing claim-closure targets to people responsible for deciding claims.

Unum moved to dismiss only the second claim. It did not move to dismiss Gleason’s claim for benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B).

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Unum’s argument that Gleason’s two claims improperly duplicated each other. Claims under the two ERISA provisions may proceed at the same time when they seek distinct remedies. The court found that Gleason’s benefits claim seeks payment of benefits due under the plan, while her fiduciary-duty claim seeks different relief, including possible injunctive relief concerning Unum’s conduct and claim-closure targets.

The court also rejected Unum’s argument that all remedies Gleason sought under § 1132(a)(3) were legally unavailable. Although Unum explained why some remedies might not be available, it did not explain why other remedies—such as an injunction preventing the distribution of claim-closure targets—would be unavailable. That argument therefore did not justify dismissing the claim.

Finally, the court addressed Unum’s concern that allowing the fiduciary-duty claim would turn the case into an insurance bad-faith action or allow any ERISA plaintiff to proceed by merely alleging that an insurer was a bad company. The court said conclusory allegations would not be enough, but found that Gleason had alleged more than that Unum was a bad company.

Disposition

The court held that Gleason had done enough to plead her ERISA fiduciary-duty claim. It denied Unum’s motion to dismiss that claim. The order did not decide the merits of whether Unum breached its fiduciary duties, and the opinion states that Unum had not challenged Gleason’s separate benefits claim in this motion.