claim and the appeal procedures available under the Plan. ERISA does not contain an explicit requirement that employees exhaust the administrative, contractual remedies prior to filing a complaint. Conley v. Pitney Bowes, 34 F.3d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1994). However, the Eighth Circuit has recognized a judicially created exhaustion re quirement under ERISA. Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Sickness & Accident Disability Benefit Plan, 111 F.3d 67, 70 (8th Cir.1997). The Eighth Circuit case law subsequent to Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Sickness & Accident Disability Benefit Plan has consistently imposed an exhaustion requirement where there is notice provided to the claimant and where there is no showing of futility. See, e.g., Back v. Danka Corp., 335 F.3d 790, 792 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Galman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 254
holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that a subclass of plan participants could sue where the remedy sought by plaintiffs would benefit the plan as a whole and  cure any harm that the plan suffered holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding exhaustion was not required where the plan failed to notify the plaintiff regarding the availability of a contractual remedy