Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

JB Viva Vegas, L.P. challenged the assessment of withdrawal liability imposed by the Nevada Resort Association-International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the US and Canada Local 720 Pension Trust under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). JB had contributed to the Trust’s pension plan for stagehands working on a theatrical production, which later closed. The Trust asserted withdrawal liability, arguing that its plan no longer qualified for the entertainment industry exception due to a shift in employee work from entertainment to convention-related activities.After JB’s request for review went unanswered, it initiated arbitration. The arbitrator initially ruled in JB’s favor, finding the plan qualified for the entertainment exception and ordering rescission of the withdrawal liability. The Trust then sought to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The district court vacated the award, reasoning that the relevant year for determining the plan’s status was the year JB withdrew, not when it joined, and remanded to the arbitrator. On remand, the arbitrator granted summary judgment to the Trust, concluding that the MPPAA was ambiguous as to how much entertainment work was required and that the plan did not “primarily” cover entertainment employees because less than half earned most of their wages from entertainment work. The district court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision, granting summary judgment to the Trust.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The court held that the MPPAA’s entertainment industry exception does not require a minimum amount of entertainment work for an individual to qualify as an “employee in the entertainment industry.” Therefore, the Trust’s plan primarily covers such employees if a majority perform any entertainment work. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case. View "NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION-INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE US AND CANADA LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST V. JB VIVA VEGAS, LP" on Justia Law

A construction company in southern Nevada ceased contributing to a multiemployer pension plan after it stopped operating in the state. The pension plan’s trustees assessed the company for withdrawal liability, asserting the company owed over $2.8 million under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). The company challenged the assessment, arguing it was exempt from liability because its asbestos abatement work qualified for the “building and construction industry” exception in the MPPAA. The company pointed out that asbestos abatement involves removing or remediating hazardous materials from buildings, including demolition and substantial alterations to structures.An arbitrator initially ruled in favor of the pension plan’s trustees, interpreting the “building and construction industry” narrowly to include only work that literally builds new structures, and finding that asbestos abatement did not meet this definition. The company then brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to vacate or modify the arbitration award. The district court rejected the arbitrator’s and trustees’ narrow construction, instead adopting a broader understanding of the industry that includes maintenance, repair, alteration, and demolition. The district court granted summary judgment to the company, holding that its asbestos abatement work qualified for the statutory exception, and ordered the return of payments made toward the assessed liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the phrase “building and construction industry” in the MPPAA incorporates the definition established by the National Labor Relations Board under the Taft-Hartley Act, which includes erection, maintenance, repair, and alteration of buildings and structures. Applying this definition, the court ruled that asbestos abatement is covered by the exception, exempting the company from withdrawal liability. View "WALKER SPECIALTY CONSTR., INC. V. BD. OF TR. OF THE CONSTR. INDUS. AND LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST" on Justia Law

Aramark, a company that self-funds employee health benefit plans governed by ERISA, contracted with Aetna to serve as third-party administrator for these plans. Under the agreement, Aetna was responsible for processing claims, managing provider networks, and handling various administrative tasks. Aramark alleged that Aetna breached its fiduciary duties by paying improper or fraudulent claims, retaining undisclosed fees, providing inadequate subrogation services, making post-adjudication adjustments detrimental to Aramark, and commingling plan assets.Aramark filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting ERISA claims for breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions. Aetna responded by seeking to compel arbitration in a Connecticut federal district court, relying on the arbitration clause in the parties’ Master Services Agreement (MSA), and moved to stay the Texas proceedings pending arbitration. The district court denied the stay, holding that the parties had not “clearly and unmistakably” delegated the threshold question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The court found that the MSA's arbitration clause carved out disputes seeking equitable relief—such as Aramark’s ERISA claims—from arbitration and that these claims were equitable in nature.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration de novo. It held that the threshold issue of arbitrability was not clearly and unmistakably delegated to an arbitrator under the terms of the MSA, especially given the placement of the carve-out for equitable relief. The Fifth Circuit further held that Aramark’s ERISA claims constituted equitable, not legal, relief under Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders, finding no error or abuse of discretion. View "Aramark Services v. Aetna Life Insurance" on Justia Law

Several participants in a terminated employee stock ownership plan asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) following the sale and dissolution of their plan. The plan, created by A360, Inc. in 2016, purchased all company stock and became its sole owner. In 2019, A360 and its trustee sold the plan’s shares to another entity, amending the plan at the same time to include an arbitration clause that required all claims to be resolved individually and prohibited representative, class, or group relief. The plan was terminated shortly thereafter, and the proceeds were distributed to participants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants undervalued the shares and breached fiduciary duties, seeking plan-wide monetary and equitable relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia considered the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on the plan’s amended arbitration provisions. The district court determined that although the plan itself could assent to arbitration, the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it precluded plan-wide relief authorized by ERISA. The court found that the provision constituted a prospective waiver of statutory rights and concluded that, per the plan amendment’s own terms, the arbitration provision was not severable and thus entirely void.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the arbitration provision was unenforceable under the effective vindication doctrine because it barred participants from seeking plan-wide relief for breaches of fiduciary duty, as provided by ERISA. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such provisions violate ERISA’s substantive rights and affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the arbitration procedure and denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "Williams v. Shapiro" on Justia Law

Robert Platt, an employee of Sodexo, Inc., sued his employer, claiming that a monthly tobacco surcharge on his employee health insurance premiums violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Platt brought claims on behalf of himself and other plan participants to recover losses under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3), and a breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the employer-sponsored health insurance plan (the Plan) for losses under ERISA § 502(a)(2). Sodexo sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision it unilaterally added to the Plan after Platt joined.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Sodexo’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement because Sodexo unilaterally modified the Plan to add the arbitration provision without Platt’s consent. The court found that Platt did not agree to arbitrate his claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that an employer cannot create a valid arbitration agreement by unilaterally modifying an ERISA-governed plan to add an arbitration provision without obtaining consent from the relevant party. The court held that Platt is the relevant consenting party for claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3) and that he did not consent to arbitration because he did not receive sufficient notice of the arbitration provision. However, the court held that the Plan is the relevant consenting party for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2) and that the Plan consented to arbitration.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Sodexo’s motion to compel arbitration for Platt’s claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3). It reversed in part the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2) and remanded for the district court to consider Platt’s unconscionability defenses and the severability of the representative action waiver and any other arbitration clauses found unconscionable. View "PLATT V. SODEXO, S.A." on Justia Law

Laurence Bonday, a former employee of Nalco Company LLC, filed an arbitration demand against Nalco, alleging that the company violated its severance plan by demoting him without offering severance pay. Nalco argued that a court needed to determine the scope of the arbitration agreement before proceeding. However, the arbitrator concluded that Bonday’s severance claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarded him nothing on that claim. Instead, the arbitrator awarded Bonday $129,465.50 on an ERISA discrimination claim that he never raised.Nalco moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by deciding the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarding relief on a claim Bonday never made. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Nalco's motion, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by interpreting the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarding relief on an unraised ERISA discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by granting relief on an ERISA discrimination claim that Bonday did not submit for arbitration. The court emphasized that an arbitrator can only bind the parties on issues they have agreed to submit and that the arbitrator's decision to award relief on an unsubmitted claim was beyond her authority. The court did not address the district court's first reason for vacating the award, as the second reason was sufficient to affirm the decision. View "Nalco Company LLC v. Bonday" on Justia Law

Ariel Torres, a former Starbucks employee, and Raphyr Lubin, the husband of another former Starbucks employee, filed a putative class action against Starbucks. They alleged that Starbucks sent them deficient health-insurance notices under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Starbucks moved to compel arbitration based on employment agreements signed by Torres and Lubin’s wife. Torres agreed to arbitration, but Lubin opposed it, arguing he was not a party to his wife’s employment agreement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Starbucks’s motion to compel arbitration for Lubin. The court found that Lubin was not a party to his wife’s employment agreement and was not suing to enforce it. Instead, Lubin sought to enforce his own statutory right to an adequate COBRA notice. The court held that no equitable doctrine of Florida contract law required Lubin to arbitrate and that Starbucks waived its argument that Lubin’s rights were derivative of his wife’s rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Lubin, not being a party to the arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate. The court also found that the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause did not apply to Lubin, as he was not a party to the agreement. Additionally, the court rejected Starbucks’s arguments based on equitable estoppel, third-party beneficiary doctrine, and the derivative claim theory, concluding that none of these principles required Lubin to arbitrate his claim. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Starbucks’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Lubin v. Starbucks Corporation" on Justia Law

Two employees, Tanika Parker and Andrew Farrier, participated in 401(k) plans managed by subsidiaries of Tenneco Inc. The plans were amended to include mandatory individual arbitration provisions, which required participants to arbitrate disputes individually and barred representative, class, or collective actions. Parker and Farrier alleged that the fiduciaries of their plans breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to prudently manage the plans, resulting in higher costs and reduced retirement savings. They sought plan-wide remedies, including restitution of losses and disgorgement of profits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the fiduciaries' motion to compel individual arbitration. The court found that the arbitration provisions limited participants' substantive rights under ERISA by eliminating their ability to bring representative actions and seek plan-wide remedies, which are guaranteed by ERISA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the individual arbitration provisions were unenforceable because they acted as a prospective waiver of the participants' statutory rights and remedies under ERISA. The court emphasized that ERISA allows participants to sue on behalf of a plan and obtain plan-wide relief, and the arbitration provisions' restrictions on representative actions and plan-wide remedies violated these statutory rights. Consequently, the arbitration provisions were invalid, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Parker v. Tenneco, Inc." on Justia Law

Allied Painting & Decorating, Inc. withdrew from the International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund in 2005. Twelve years later, the Fund demanded $427,195 from Allied, claiming it was owed for the withdrawal. The key issue was whether the Fund's delay in sending the demand violated the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which requires that such demands be made "as soon as practicable" after withdrawal.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case after Allied contested the demand, arguing that the delay caused significant prejudice. The Arbitrator initially found that the Fund did not act "as soon as practicable" but concluded that Allied failed to prove severe prejudice, thus rejecting Allied's laches defense. The District Court, however, found that Allied was prejudiced by the delay and vacated the Arbitrator's Award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's order vacating the Arbitrator's Award. The Third Circuit held that the Fund's failure to send the demand "as soon as practicable" after Allied's withdrawal violated the MPPAA. The court clarified that the "as soon as practicable" requirement is a statutory mandate independent of any laches defense, meaning that the Fund's delay alone was sufficient to invalidate the demand, regardless of whether Allied could prove prejudice. Consequently, the Fund could not recover the claimed withdrawal liability from Allied. View "Allied Painting & Decorating Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension" on Justia Law

The Trustees of the New York State Nurses Association Pension Plan (the Trustees) and White Oak Global Advisors, LLC (White Oak) entered into an investment management agreement, which included an arbitration clause. The Trustees later brought several fiduciary duty claims against White Oak under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which were resolved through arbitration. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the Trustees, which the Trustees sought to confirm in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.White Oak appealed the confirmation, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction and that the court erroneously interpreted the award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's jurisdiction, finding that the Trustees' petition to confirm the award was cognizable under ERISA § 502(a)(3). The court also affirmed the district court's interpretation of the award regarding the disgorgement of pre-award interest and the "Day One" fees. However, the court vacated and remanded the district court's confirmation of the disgorgement of White Oak's "profits," finding the award too ambiguous to enforce. The court also vacated and remanded the district court's order for White Oak to pay the Trustees' attorneys' fees and costs, finding the district court's findings insufficiently specific. View "Trustees of the NYSNAPP v. White Oak Glob. Adv." on Justia Law