The U.S. Supreme Court case Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. et al. v. Bruch et al., 1988, revolved around the interpretation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and its application in a dispute between Firestone Tire & Rubber Company and some of its former employees over severance benefits after plant closure due to sale or merger activities by the company. The court ruled that courts should use de novo review, not arbitrary-and-capricious standard when evaluating denials of ERISA-governed employee benefit claims unless the plan gives discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or interpret terms under it to an administrator or fiduciary; which was not applicable in this case as per Justice O'Connor's opinion for unanimous court decision.

In the dissenting opinion for Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to apply a de novo standard of review in ERISA benefits denial cases was too restrictive and inconsistent with Congress' intent when it enacted ERISA. He believed that courts should defer to plan administrators unless their decisions were arbitrary or capricious, as this would encourage employers to offer benefit plans and ensure consistent application of those plans across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, he expressed concern that the majority's approach could lead to increased litigation costs and potentially discourage employers from offering such plans altogether.