Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00251/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 32.) Plaintiff seeks to bring an additional claim against Defendants for failing to 

comply with the disclosure requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act (“ERISA”). (Doc. 32-1 at ¶ 53-57.) Plaintiff indicates that after Defendant denied 

him benefits under its short-term disability plan, he requested a copy of the complete 

Short-Term Disability Plan (“Plan”) on multiple occasions; however, Defendant has only 

provided him a two-page information sheet about the Plan. (Doc. 32 at 2; Doc. 32-1 at ¶ 

34-40.) 

 Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that Plaintiff has no legal claim for 

relief because the Plan under which Plaintiff was denied benefits is not governed by 

ERISA. (Doc. 34 at 4-7.) Defendants also claim that they have already provided 

Plaintiff a copy of all available documentation. (Doc. 34 at 7-8; Doc. 34-1 at 2-4.) 

 Upon review of the record, the Court finds that in order to rule on Plaintiff’s 

motion and determine whether leave to file an amended complaint is warranted, a full and 

Lee Norris, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

The Kroger Co., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-00251-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-00251-SPL Document 45 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

complete copy of the Plan is necessary. Although Defendants claim they have provided 

the requested Plan to Plaintiff, it is evident from the record that Defendant has only 

provided Plaintiff a two-page summary sheet containing an overview of the short-term 

disability benefits Defendants provide to their employees. (See Doc. 34-1 at 2-4.) It is 

also evident that a more detailed document exists, as the summary sheet expressly notes: 

This document includes highlights of The Kroger Co.’s 2011 Short-Term 

Disability Plan. Every effort has been made to provide accurate 

information. A complete description of each benefit option can be found in 

the plans’ legal documents and contracts. In the event of a conflict between 

this and any other descriptions of the plan, the formal plan documents and 

insurance contracts will control. 

(Id.) Further, the summary sheet directs employees to contact the company’s Human 

Resources Department to obtain more information on the company’s family medical 

leave and short-term disability policies and to receive a copy of the company’s short-term 

disability summary plan description. (Id.) Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this 

order to file a copy of The Kroger Co.’s 2011 Short-Term Disability Plan and any revised 

or amended versions thereof with the Court. 

 Dated this 7th day of August, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00251-SPL Document 45 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 2