534 F. Supp. 2d 288 - Amara v. Cigna Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably 131 S. Ct. 1866 - CIGNA Corp. v. Amara (2011), CIGNA Corp. v. Amara (2011)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1022 (§ 102 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1024 (§ 104 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (§ 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Sosna v. Iowa · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n effectuating the conversion to the cash balance plan, CIGNA did not give a key notice to employees that is required by ERISA; and CIGNA’s summary plan descriptions and other materials were inadequate under ERISA and in some instances, downright misleading. ERISA gives employers substantial leeway in designing a pension plan, and the Court believes that CIGNA’s Plan complies with the relevant statutory provisions. However, ERISA also emphasizes the importance of disclosure by employers to employees regarding the details of the company’s pension plan, to enable employees to plan for their retirement and to make decisions of profound importance for their lives. This is where CIGNA failed to fulfill its obligations; the company did not provide its employees with the information they needed to understand the conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan and its effect on their retirement benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Wear away means that there are periods of time in which the employee’s account balance is less than the employee’s minimum benefit. What wear away means in practice is that even though an employee is continuing each year to receive pay and interest credits under Part B, and the employee's account balance may even be growing, it nonetheless remains less than the minimum benefit earned as of December 31, 1997; in effect, where there is wear away, even though the employee continues to work for CIGNA and continues to receive benefit credits, the employee’s expected retirement benefits have not grown beyond what the employee was entitled to under Part A as of December 31, 1997.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when they became reemployed. Id. at 354 . However, CIGNA changed this rule to provide that all employees hired by CIGNA after a certain date would be placed in Part B, regardless of whether they had previously accrued benefits under Part A. Id. These rehired employees claimed that CIGNA was required to send them § 204(h) notice of this change so they could make an informed decision as to whether to return to CIGNA or not. Id. at 355. The question the court addressed was whether separated, vested employees who were no longer accruing benefits under Part A could be considered”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.