Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a former NFL player, filed suit seeking more generous disability benefits under the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan, affirming its benefits determinations that plaintiff was only eligible for "Inactive" player disability benefits instead of the more generous "Football Degenerative" disability benefits he sought. The court held that the district court did not err by applying abuse of discretion review to the Retirement Board's 2011 benefits determination; the district court did not err in using abuse of discretion instead of a heightened standard of review when considering the arbitrator's decision; and the district court's decision affirming the Retirement Board's 2006 and 2011 benefits determination on the merits under the abuse of discretion standard was correct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan. View "Atkins v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Goding was a beneficiary of an Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan administered by Drury. Goding sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident and received benefits from the Drury-administered Plan, as well as compensation through the settlement of a civil suit related to those injuries. Pursuant to a subrogation provision in the ERISA Plan, Drury attempted to secure reimbursement from Goding for the benefits it paid but was unable to do so after Goding declared bankruptcy. Drury then attempted to obtain that reimbursement from the firm that represented Goding. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Drury could not obtain such reimbursement because the firm had not agreed to the Plan's subrogation provision and consequently was not contractually bound by it; Drury could not maintain a suit against the firm in equity and could not bring a state cause of action for conversion against the firm; and the firm should be awarded attorneys' fees for successful defense of a subsequent motion. View "Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Ind. v. Goding, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant William Foster sued his former employer, Defendant-Appellee PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), and Defendant-Appellee the PPG Industries Employee Savings Plan (collectively, Defendants) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to recover Plan benefits allegedly due him after Foster’s ex-wife fraudulently withdrew Foster’s entire Plan account balance. The district court upheld the decision of the Plan Administrator, who had determined that the Plan was not liable to reimburse Foster for the fraudulently withdrawn benefits. Foster appealed. Finding no merit to Foster's argument, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Foster v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Former Fifth Third employees participated in a defined contribution retirement plan with Fifth Third as trustee. Participants make voluntary contributions and direct the Plan to purchase investments for their individual accounts from preselected options. The options included Fifth Third Stock, two collective funds, or 17 mutual funds. Fifth Third makes matching contributions for eligible participants that are initially invested in the Fifth Third Stock Fund but may be moved later to other investment options. Significant Plan assets were invested in Fifth Third Stock. Plan fiduciaries incorporated by reference Fifth Third’s SEC filings into the Summary Plan Description. Plaintiffs allege that Fifth Third switched from being a conservative lender to a subprime lender, its loan portfolio became increasingly at-risk, and it either failed to disclose or provided misleading disclosures. The price of the stock declined 74 percent. The district court dismissed a complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, based on a presumption that the decision to remain invested in employer securities was reasonable. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged a claim of breach of fiduciary duty and causal connection regarding failure to divest the Plan of Fifth Third Stock and remove that stock as an investment option. View "Dudenhoefer v. Fifth Third Bancorp" on Justia Law

In 2009, George, a vice president of JA, discovered that money withheld from his pay was not being deposited into his retirement account and health savings account. He complained to JA’s accountants and executives, including Burk. He contacted the Department of Labor but declined to file a complaint. He raised the issue with board members, then received checks for $2,600 for the missed deposits plus interest. His employment agreement ran until June 30, 2010, but he had discussed, with Burk and others, retiring in April 2010. On January 4, 2010, Burk told George not to return to work. Burk later discovered that George had drawn down the account containing his deferred compensation. J A concedes that George was entitled to withdraw the funds, but it did not rescind his discharge. George claimed violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1104(a) and retaliation for reporting that violation. The district court granted JA summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit vacated. An employee’s grievance is within ERISA’s scope of protection against retaliation whether or not the employer solicited information. George notified JA of the potential breach of its fiduciary duties and asked what would be done. Those conversations involved an “inquiry.” View "George v. Jr. Achievement of Cent. IN, Inc." on Justia Law

Schorsch enrolled in a long-term disability plan in 1991, but apparently never received a summary plan description or explanation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.1132. In 1992 she was in an automobile accident; in 1993 Schorsch began receiving disability benefits. In 2006, at the plan’s request, Schorsch underwent a medical exam, which resulted in a report finding her capable of performing a medium duty job. The plan notified Schorsch that it would terminate her benefits, but did not mention a surveillance report, which was part of the determination. , Schorsch’s counsel sent a letter, but neither Schorsch nor her attorney submitted a request for review. The plan notified Schorsch that the appeals period had passed. Schorsch’s claimed breach of contract and unreasonable denial of benefits under Illinois law and ERISA violations. The plan had lost the administrative record relating to Schorsch’s claim. The district court granted summary judgment on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There are exceptions that may excuse a failure to exhaust, but Schorsch offered no evidence of reasonable reliance on information missing from the notice or that alleged deficiencies were material. View "Schorsch v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This appeal and purported class-appeal primarily concerned two issues arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 28 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The first issue was whether trustees of a multi-employer pension fund acted as fiduciaries when they amended the pension plan. The second issue was whether the claims asserted in this case were time-barred. The court concluded that the dismissal of Counts I-V was proper because the trustees were not acting as fiduciaries in amending the Plan, and in reaching that conclusion, the court deemed the contrary rulings of the court in Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and Siskind v. Sperry Retirement Program, to have been abrogated by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. The court also concluded that fact issues remained as to whether Counts VII-IX were properly dismissed as time-barred. View "Janese v. Fay" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are retirees who received benefits under Commonwealth Industries’ pension plan. They allege that the Plan underpaid them, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), when it did not include a subsidy for early retirement in its benefit calculations when it switched from a defined-benefit to a cash-balance plan in 1998. The district court dismissed all but one plaintiff (Corley) on limitations grounds and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the merits of Corley’s claims. The court reasoned that, as of 1998, Corley was not yet entitled to his early-retirement subsidy because he was then not yet 55, so the early-retirement benefit had not accrued yet, and the amendment did not reduce any accrued benefit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the time-barred plaintiffs, but vacated as to Corley. On remand, the district court should consider whether the benefits payable to Corley under the relevant versions of the Plan constituted “an early retirement benefit” or “a retirement-type subsidy” which would be protected from elimination or reduction, or “an optional form of benefit” which would only be protected from elimination, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g)(2)(A), (B).View "Fallin v. Commonwealth Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are retired unionized employees of defendant and were covered by collective bargaining agreements that addressed healthcare benefits. The parties contest whether the CBAs guaranteed employees and their spouses lifetime healthcare benefits after retirement. After retiring, the employees and spouses continued to receive healthcare insurance from defendant. Between ages 62 to 65, defendant paid 80% of the premium costs. When the retirees turned 65, defendant assumed 100% of premium costs. In 2006, defendant informed plaintiffs that the company was instituting a new healthcare plan that would no longer cover 100% of the premiums. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132. The district court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor as to employee coverage, but in favor of defendant as to spouses. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, in favor of plaintiffs. Although healthcare is a “welfare benefit,” not entitled to the same ERISA protection as pension benefits, employers are free to waive their power to alter welfare benefits. Defendant did so by offering vested healthcare coverage to retired employees and spouses, and by agreeing that CBAs could only be modified with signed, mutual consent of the parties. View "Moore v. Menasha Corp." on Justia Law

Eloise Walker, mother of the decedent, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Pamela Wright-Dallas, the named beneficiary under the decedent's benefits plans. Walker argued that the district court erred because it made a ruling without first reviewing the entire administrative record, and in the alternative, the district court erred by applying the wrong standard of review. The court found no plain error and rejected Walker's claim that the district considered an inadequate record; the district court properly applied the abuse-of-discretion standard; and a heightened standard of review was not warranted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Trustees of the Local No. 1, et al. v. Walker" on Justia Law