Denials of relief for even clear violations of statutory protections have left some injured benefit plan participants and beneficiaries without compensation and failed to provide appropriate incentives for compliance. Many of the remedial failures can be traced to a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case, which narrowly construed the relevant statute's provision for appropriate equitable relief. I argue that since 2002, the Supreme Court slowly and subtly has been shifting its approach to equitable relief in benefits cases. Because the Court's development of the remedial jurisprudence has been subtle and incremental, neither lower courts nor scholars have fully recognized the shift. I rely on theoretical approaches to equity, scholarly commentary across fields of law, and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence to consider the definition of appropriate equitable relief. I then articulate a detailed analysis for use in determining when appropriate equable relief should be available in benefits cases. Applying the analysis to three important categories of benefits cases shows that, properly interpreted, the Employee Retirement Income Act's provision for appropriate equitable relief is neither so unconstrained as to threaten the viability of benefit plans nor so pinched as to deny remedies for rights granted by the statute.

中文翻译：

---

从分裂到棱镜：员工福利计划的公平救济

即使明显违反法定保护措施也无法获得救济，这使一些受伤的福利计划参与者和受益人没有得到赔偿，也未能提供适当的激励措施来遵守。许多补救措施上的失败都可以追溯到1993年美国最高法院的一宗案件，该案狭义地解释了相关法规关于适当公平救济的规定。我认为，自2002年以来，最高法院一直在缓慢而微妙地将其方法转向福利案件的公平救济。由于法院对补救法理学的发展是微妙和渐进的，因此下级法院和学者都没有充分认识到这一转变。我依靠公平的理论方法，跨法律领域的学术评论以及最高法院的 有关适当衡平法救济定义的判例。然后，我阐述详细的分析，以用于确定在福利案件中何时应提供适当的平等救济。将分析应用于三类重要的福利案件中，可以发现，经正确解释后，《雇员退休收入法》中有关适当公平救济的规定既没有受到束缚，以至威胁到福利计划的可行性，也没有受到限制，从而拒绝了对雇员授予的权利的救济。法令。