In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, the Court set forth the standard of review for denials of benefits provided by employers under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). While de novo review was the standard, the Court held, where plan documents grant deferential authority to administrators, the standard shifts to an abuse of discretion. Subsequent decisions by the Court clarified how to weigh factors like an ERISA plan's conflict of interest in administering and funding benefits and reinforced the deference owed to an administrator's interpretation of plan terms, but the Court has not weighed in on the deference, if any, owed to significant procedural violations. As a result, there is an entrenched conflict within the circuit courts, with the Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit employing a strict adherence standard and default de novo review, respectively, where such violations are found, the Eleventh Circuit treating procedural violations as a matter of statutory and regulatory compliance as a matter of law that must be reviewed de novo, and the Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and other circuits maintaining a more deferential substantial compliance review. To resolve these issues, the questions presented are:

1. Whether significant procedural violations of ERISA require de novo review, strict adherence, or some other heightened standard that does not defer to Plan administrators absent harmless procedural irregularities.

2. If Firestone's holding applies to significant procedural violations by an ERISA plan administrator, whether Firestone should be reconsidered.

Whether significant procedural violations of ERISA require de novo review, strict adherence, or some other heightened standard that does not defer to Plan administrators absent harmless procedural irregularities