## Facts

- Firestone maintained a termination pay plan and two other unfunded employee benefit plans governed by ERISA, and it served as administrator and fiduciary.
- Firestone sold its Plastics Division to Occidental Petroleum; the former Firestone employees were rehired by Occidental.
- The former employees sought severance benefits under Firestone’s termination pay plan; Firestone denied the claims, asserting there was no plan-triggering “reduction in work force.”
- Several former employees requested plan documents and information under ERISA’s disclosure provisions; Firestone refused, asserting they were not “participants.”
- The employees sued to recover benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and sought statutory penalties for nondisclosure under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(A) and 1132(c)(1)(B).
- The district court applied an arbitrary-and-capricious standard and entered summary judgment for Firestone, and it also held the employees lacked “participant” status for disclosure.
- The Third Circuit reversed, applying de novo review and construing “participant” to include persons claiming entitlement to benefits.

## Issues

1. What standard of judicial review applies under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) to a plan administrator’s denial of benefits: de novo or deferential review?
2. Who is a “participant” under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7) for purposes of suing for benefits and obtaining plan information and penalties under ERISA’s disclosure and enforcement provisions?

## Decision

- The Court held that a denial of benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is reviewed de novo unless the plan grants the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility or construe plan terms.
- The Court rejected automatic importation of an arbitrary-and-capricious standard from LMRA trustee-review cases.
- Applying the rule, the Court concluded Firestone’s termination pay plan did not clearly confer discretionary authority; de novo review therefore applied.
- The Court held that “participant” includes a former employee with a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment or a colorable claim to vested benefits.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for application of the correct review standard and individualized determinations of participant status.

## Legal Principles

- ERISA benefit denials under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) are reviewed de novo unless the plan expressly grants discretionary authority to determine eligibility or interpret plan terms; if discretion is granted, deferential review applies.
- ERISA’s standard of review is informed by trust-law principles rather than a blanket LMRA-derived arbitrary-and-capricious approach.
- “Participant” under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7) includes former employees who either (a) reasonably expect to return to covered employment or (b) have a colorable claim to vested benefits, including claims that could succeed in litigation or become eligible in the future.
- Individuals meeting the participant definition may seek plan information under 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4) and pursue statutory remedies for nondisclosure under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)(B).

## Conclusion

The Court required de novo review of ERISA benefit denials unless a plan clearly grants discretionary authority and defined “participant” to include former employees with a reasonable expectation of reemployment or a colorable claim to vested benefits, ensuring access to enforcement and disclosure remedies for claimants meeting that standard.


Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989)