Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), generally exempts from its requirements “church plans”: employee-benefit plans established and maintained by churches for their employees. ERISA also extends that church-plan exemption to "principal-purpose" organizations. Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI), a nonprofit organization created to carry out the Roman Catholic Church’s healing ministry, operates 92 hospitals and numerous other healthcare facilities in 18 states. CHI offers a retirement plan for its employees, with more than 90,000 participants and beneficiaries, and nearly $3 billion in plan assets. Janeen Medina, a CHI employee, filed a class action, alleging that CHI’s retirement plan failed to satisfy the statutory criteria for the church-plan exemption. She contended that, since the plan did not qualify for the exemption, CHI should have complied with the reporting and funding requirements of ERISA. Medina also argued the individual defendants who administered the plan breached their fiduciary duties by failing to comply with ERISA. And, Medina argued, even if the CHI plan did qualify as a church plan, the exemption violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court held that CHI’s plan was a church plan that qualified for the ERISA exemption. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed, concluding that CHI’s plan satisfied the statutory requirements for the church-plan exemption as a proper principal-purpose organization. The ERISA exemption, moreover, does not run afoul of the United States Constitution’s Establishment Clause. View "Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives" on Justia Law

Babin, employed by Quality, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and had several surgeries. Three months after he returned to work, his employment ended. Babin participated in Quality’s employee benefit plan, which provided short- and long-term disability benefits, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Babin submitted a short-term disability benefits application to Standard, Quality’s insurer. In February 2013, Standard denied Babin’s claim because it had not received a necessary form from Quality. Babin alleges that he provided that form to Quality, which failed to complete it. In February 2014, Babin’s counsel asked Quality for disability plan documents. Babin claims that Quality did not send those documents before he filed suit, that he believed that the short-term plan provided six months of benefits, and, had he known that the plan only provides three months of benefits, he would have applied for long-term benefits; Quality’s failure to produce the documents caused him to miss the window for long-term benefits. Babin filed suit 20 months after requesting the documents, alleging failure to produce documents and failure to pay benefits. The parties settled the denial-of-benefits claim. The court held that Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period for delictual claims applies to 29 U.S.C. 1132(c) claims, so Babin’s claim was time-barred. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Babin’s argument that Louisiana’s 10-year prescriptive period for personal actions should govern his claim for failure to produce documents. View "Babin v. Quality Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Bruce and Bridget married in 1993. Their only child, Sierra, was born in 1995. In 2003, Bruce signed up for a life insurance plan sponsored by his employer and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Bruce listed his uncle as the sole beneficiary. Bruce and Bridget divorced in 2006. Bruce died in 2013, insured for $48,000 in basic life insurance and $191,000 in optional life insurance. In their 2006 divorce decree, Bruce and Bridget agreed to maintain any employer-related life insurance policies for the benefit of Sierra until she turned 18 or graduated from high school. Bruce had not changed his beneficiary. The district court ordered payment to Sierra. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The divorce decree suffices as a qualified domestic relations order that, incorporating the Jacksons’ separation agreement and their shared parenting plan, “clearly specifies” Sierra as the beneficiary under 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(C). Her parents’ (alleged) non-compliance with the decree does not limit Sierra’s rights under ERISA. View "Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, part of ERISA, a construction industry employer who withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan owes liability to that plan if the employer conducts work “in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of the type for which contributions were previously required,” 29 U.S.C. 1383(b)(2)(B)(i). The Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund assessed pension liability against Stevens Engineers claiming that Stevens’s activities on a certain construction project involved such work within the jurisdiction of their previous CBA. An arbitrator, the district court, and the Sixth Circuit found that Stevens did not owe pension liability to the Fund because the work identified by Local 17 did not fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant CBA, and did not otherwise require contributions by Stevens. The CBA instead allowed Stevens to assign jobs like the ones at issue to other trade unions, and a job did not trigger pension liability to the Fund if, as here, it was properly assigned to a different union. View "Stevens Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. Local 17 Iron Workers Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against UHS under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132, seeking to recover unpaid benefits. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff could not bring claims for benefits due to her husband in her personal capacity, but rather, a legal representative of her husband's estate must bring the claim. Furthermore, plaintiff could not bring a section 1132(a)(3)(B) claim in equity. However, a restitutionary claim for premiums she paid under section 1132(a)(3)(B) was potentially available to her if there was a plan violation. The court remanded to the district court to determine initially if there was such a plan violation and, if so, whether restitution of plaintiff's premiums was "appropriate equitable relief" under section 1132(a)(3)(B). The court also held that the district court did not err in determining that UHS was not the plan administrator and plaintiff's breach of contract claim was preempted by ERISA. View "Ibson v. United Healthcare Services" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims, holding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132, preempted state law claims. The court held that, although the savings clause preserves a role for certain state laws that regulate insurance, state claims that provide a separate vehicle for seeking benefits from an ERISA plan remain preempted as such claims must be brought under ERISA's civil enforcement provision. The court explained that, otherwise, the exclusivity and uniformity of that federal remedy would be undermined. In this case, because plaintiff's claim for benefits must be brought under federal law, the district court correctly dismissed her state law claims seeking the same relief. Furthermore, the availability of that statutory remedy under section 502 of ERISA also defeated plaintiff's claim for equitable relief under federal law. View "Swenson v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A “top-hat” plan “which is unfunded and is maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees,” 29 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1), 1051(2), 1081(a)(3), need not comply with many of the substantive provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Sikora sought to recover pension benefits under ERISA through the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and its Health System and Affiliates Non-Qualified Supplemental Benefit Plan. The district court held, and the Third Circuit affirmed, that he was not entitled to obtain such relief because he sought benefits under a top-hat plan. The courts rejected Sikora’s argument that the defendants were required to prove that plan participants had bargaining power before a court could conclude that he participated in a top-hat plan. Plan participant bargaining power is not a substantive element of a top-hat plan. View "Paul Sikora v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of class certification and grant of summary judgment for CSC in an action filed by former executives pursuant to section 1132(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged denial of benefits under their deferred executive compensation plan after a plan amendment changed the applicable crediting rate, and sought class certification on behalf of all retired plan participants affected by the amendment. The court declined to decide which standards of review applied because the competing standards of review presented a distinction without a difference. Whether the court proceeded under a reasonableness inquiry, an abuse-of-discretion standard, or even de novo review, the 2012 Amendment and CSC's denial of benefits were valid. View "Plotnick v. Computer Sciences Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granted summary judgment for New West Health Services (New West) in this action brought by Plaintiff and the class she represented alleging breach of contract, violation of made-whole rights, and unfair claims settlement practices. At issue in this appeal was the district court’s grant to New West leave to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of ERISA preemption. The district court subsequently allowed Plaintiff to amended her complaint to include ERISA claims. Ultimately, the district court concluded that ERISA preemption required dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law and ERISA claims and entered summary judgment for New West. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the district court abused its discretion by granting New West leave to amend its answer to assert ERISA preemption. View "Rolan v. New West Health Services" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellate attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1). The panel held that, pursuant to Sokol v. Bernstein, 812 F.2d 559, 561 (9th Cir. 1987), a court must consider the entire course of the litigation when analyzing a party's request for appellate attorney's fees within the Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446 (9th Cir. 1980), rubric. Accordingly, the panel remanded to the district court for calculation of a reasonable award of fees and costs. View "Micha v. Sun Life Assurance of Canada" on Justia Law