Estate of Schwing v. The Lilly Health Plan, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7871 (3d Cir. April 14, 2009)

Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 138 S.Ct. 2343 (2008), the Third Circuit held that courts deciding an ERISA plan participant’s appeal from the plan administrator’s denial of benefits should apply a “sliding scale” standard of review, in which the level of deference accorded the administrator’s decision would change depending on the presence of conflicts of interest affecting plan administration. In Schwing, the Third Circuit recognized that, in light of Glenn, this “sliding scale” approach is no longer valid. Instead, the Court announced a new standard of review, whereby courts should apply a deferential abuse of discretion standard of review across the board and consider any conflict of interest as one of several factors in considering whether the plan administrator abused its discretion.

Alleyne v. American Airlines, Inc., 548 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2008)

In Alleyne, the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a discrimination plaintiff’s claim as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations was triggered by the employer’s allegedly discriminatory acts, and not when the consequences of those acts “became most painful.”

Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Probation & Parole, 551 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2008)

Closely examining basic principles of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, the Third Circuit has held that acceptance of federal funds by one part of a state agency is sufficient to waive immunity for all parts of that agency.

McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2008)

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that its existing standard of review for ERISA disputes has been abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008), and has announced a new standard for judicial review of such disputes. While the previous standard of review provided for de novo judicial review of an ERISA administrator's decision when it is shown that a conflict of interest actually influenced that decision, the new standard merely provides that such a conflict of interest is to be “weighed as a factor” in determining whether there was an abuse of discretion.

Toto v. Princeton Township, 404 N.J. Super. 604 (App. Div. 2009)

In Toto, New Jersey’s Appellate Division clarified that, with respect to a claim for hostile work environment, the two-year statute of limitations begins to run from the last day that the plaintiff was at work, and not from the date of his official separation. Thus, even though the plaintiff was not terminated until seven months after his last day at work, and even though he filed suit less than two years after that, his hostile workplace environment claim was properly dismissed as untimely, because it was filed more than two years after his last day on the job.

Hasan v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 545 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2008)

The Third Circuit recently held that an employer’s failure to hire an applicant for allegedly retaliatory reasons is a sufficient basis for a lawsuit, even where the applicant had merely responded to an internet advertisement and was not offered a job.

Sinacole v. IGate Capital, 287 Fed. Appx. 993 (3d Cir. 2008)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a U.S. Department of Labor Regulation, providing that an employee, whose employer had failed to confirm her eligibility for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), must be “deemed” eligible, is invalid and may not be used to give otherwise FMLA-ineligible employees a cause of action for interference under the FMLA.