Perrino v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• describing the exhaustion requirement as well-settled law in the Eleventh Circuit and articulating the rationales for the requirement
• rejecting exception to ERISA exhaustion requirement based on employer’s “noncompliance with ERISA’s technical requirements”
• “Our caselaw makes plain that as a general rule plaintiffs in ERISA actions must exhaust available administrative remedies before suing in federal court.” (emphasis added)
• “[E]mployees should not have their ERISA claims adversely affected by . . . technical noncompliance with ERISA regulations[.]”
• “We apply this exhaustion requirement to both ERISA claims arising from the substantive provisions of the statute, and ERISA claims arising from an employment and/or pension plan agreement.”
• “[A] district court has the sound discretion to excuse the exhaustion requirement . . . where a claimant is denied meaningful access to the administrative review scheme in place.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).