Charles Johnson v. Allsteel, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an ERISA plan administrator’s increased discretion increased risk that the participant would be denied benefits and that “[t]he increased risk the participant faces as a result is an injury-in-fact” for standing purposes
• disagreeing with the district court’s conclusion but commending its decision to address standing sua sponte
• stand­ ing based on increased risk that Employee Retirement Income Security Act beneficiary will not be covered due to increased amount of discretion given to ERISA administrator
• allegation that defendant increased the level of administrative discretion under ERISA plan sufficient to satisfy Article Ill’s standing requirement
• “[W]hen Allsteel increased its discretion as plan administrator, it simultaneously decreased the value of [the plaintiff’s] bargained-for-entitlements, causing him injury-in-fact.”
• \An increased amount of discretion opens up to the administrator administering the plan a greater range of permissible choices. This expanded range renders `less solid' the participant's benefits by shifting risk to the participant.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).