Bridget Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (560 U.S. 242)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 24, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 560 U.S. 242 · 130 S. Ct. 2149
- Decided
- May 24, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Attorneys
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In most lawsuits seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., “a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs” are available “to either party” at the court’s “discretion.” § 1132(g)(1). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has interpreted § 1132(g)(1) to require that a fee claimant be a “prevailing party” before he may seek a fees award. We reject this interpretation as contrary to § 1132(g)(l)’s plain text. We hold instead that a court “in its discretion” may award fees and costs “to either party,” ibid., as long as the fee claimant has achieved “some degree of success on the merits,” Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U. S. 680, 694 (1983). I In 2000, while working as an executive assistant to the president of textile manufacturer Dan River, Inc., petitioner Bridget Hardt began experiencing neck and shoulder pain. Her doctors eventually diagnosed her with carpal tunnel syndrome. Because surgeries on both her wrists failed to alleviate her pain, Hardt stopped working in January 2003. In August 2003, Hardt sought long-term disability benefits from Dan River’s Group Long-Term Disability Insurance Program Plan (Plan). Dan River administers the Plan, which is subject to ERISA, but respondent Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company decides…
Excerpt of a 24,807-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.