holding that ex-husband was proper beneficiary despite a dissolution agreement containing "a fairly explicit waiver of the plan benefits" and stating that "we have interpreted [§ 1104(a)(1)(D)] as establishing a clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents in determining the designated beneficiary"
Summary of this case from Kmatz v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.No. 96-6233.
April 13, 1998.
E.D.Tenn.
Affirmed
holding that ex-husband was proper beneficiary despite a dissolution agreement containing "a fairly explicit waiver of the plan benefits" and stating that "we have interpreted [§ 1104(a)(1)(D)] as establishing a clear mandate that plan administrators follow plan documents in determining the designated beneficiary"
Summary of this case from Kmatz v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.holding that a terminated employee who failed to provide the required medical certification for FMLA leave had no claim against her employer for violation of FMLA where the employee had previously been told that certification was required in order to remain absent from work
Summary of this case from Carpenter v. Permanentegranting motion to dismiss appeal as moot after bank filed an amended proof of claim deleting its claim for attorney fees and ordering vacation of bankruptcy court decision
Summary of this case from In re YanceyIn Hendon, the administrator of the deceased's estate sued the deceased's ex-spouse and the deceased's employer for wrongful distribution of the deceased's employee benefits. No. 96-6233, 1998 WL 199824, at *1.
Summary of this case from Francis v. DonovanIn Harrington v. Boysville of Michigan, Inc., 145 F.3d 1331, 1998 WL 252755 (6th Cir. 1998) (unpublished opinion; text available on WESTLAW), the court found that the plaintiffs evidence of her supervisor calling her a "dumb broad" and a "bitch" on three separate occasions insufficient proof of a hostile work environment ("[T]he comments allegedly made by Clark were not as frequent as were those in Black, nor were they physically threatening or humiliating...."
Summary of this case from Schemansky v. California Pizza KitchenIn Hendon the court noted, "In this case there is no dispute that Mayberry named Fuller as her beneficiary and did not change the designation, as she could have, after the divorce."
Summary of this case from Franklin v. GibsonFull title:Hendon v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Date published: Apr 13, 1998
" Honeywell, Inc. v. Brewer–Garrett Co. , 145 F.3d 1331 (6th Cir. 1998) (emphasis supplied). III.…
Lofton v. Affiliated Computer Servs., LLC§ 1446(a). First Nat. Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 461 (6th Cir. 2002) ("As the statutory language…