Donald J. CHAILLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROWN & ROOT, INC., Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that exhaustion is not required for ERISA § 510 claim where plan is incapable of providing a remedy
• “Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly denied Brown & Root's motion to dismiss pursuant to our exhaustion of remedies doctrine”
• invoking jurisdiction under § 16(a)(1) despite the court’s subsequent conclusion that there was no agreement to arbitrate
• discussing exceptions to ERISA exhaustion requirement and finding requirement did not apply where claim did not involve any action of a plan covered by ERISA
• “Even if any single step is not complicated, repetitive and coordinated conduct can amount to a sophisticated scheme.” (quoting United States v. Bistrup, 449 F.3d 873, 882 (8th Cir. 2006))
• “Our cases applying this common law exhaustion requirement presuppose that the grievance upon which the lawsuit is based arises from some action of a plan covered by ERISA, and that the plan is capable of providing the relief sought by the plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).