February Roundup: A Botched Beneficiary Change, and a Discrimination Claim That Didn't Make It Past the Pleadings
Failed to add items
Add to Cart failed.
Add to Wish List failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
-
Narrated by:
-
By:
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.