Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs worked until 2006, when the plant closed, and retired under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA); that provided that the employer would provide health insurance, either through a self-insured plan or under a group insurance policy and identified the employer’s contribution to the premium. The CBAs provided that the coverage an employee had at the time of retirement or termination at age 65 or older other than a discharge for cause “shall be continued thereafter provided that suitable arrangements for such continuation[] can be made… In the event… benefits … [are] not practicable … the Company in agreement with the Union will provide new benefits and/or coverages as closely related as possible and of equivalent value." In 2011 TRW (the employer’s successor) stated that it would discontinue group health care coverage beginning in 2012, but would be providing “Health Reimbursement Accounts” (HRAs) and would make a one-time contribution of $15,000 for each eligible retiree and eligible spouse in 2012, and in 2013, would provide a $4,800 credit to the HRAs for each eligible party. The HRAs shifted risk, and potentially costs, to plaintiffs. TRW did not commit to funding the HRAs beyond 2013. Plaintiffs sued, claiming that the change breached the CBAs, in violation of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The district court certified a class and granted summary judgment, ruling that the CBAs established a commitment to lifetime health care benefits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed View "United Steel, Paper, Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. Kelsey-Hayes Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired by Employer in 1983. Plaintiff was covered by a short-term disability plan, and the Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”) had the authority to decide questions of eligibility for coverage or benefits under the plan. After Plaintiff underwent back surgery in 2009, LINA at first granted but then denied Plaintiff disability benefits. In 2010, Plaintiff sued LINA, Employer, and others in Puerto Rico court, seeking review of the benefits denial. LINA later removed the action to the District of Puerto Rico. Ultimately, the district court (1) found LINA’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious because Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient medical evidence of disability, and (2) dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Employer for failure to plead it with specificity. Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal on procedural grounds because Plaintiff committed numerous procedural errors, which precluded intelligent review. View "Gonzalez-Rios v. Hewlett Packard PR Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employer and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. After the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommended dispositions, plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs have failed to set forth sufficient evidence to show that they were due more in benefits and penalties than the amount that the district court determined that they were owed; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their requests for nonmonetary relief or in determining the reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "McDowell, et al. v. Price, et al." on Justia Law

When Tyco Valves & Controls, L.P. decided to close one of its facilities located in Houston, Tyco offered certain employees retention agreements providing that, if the employees remained with the company through the facility’s closure, they would receive severance payments in the event they were not offered comparable employment with Tyco. After Tyco sold one of the production units located in the facility to another company, Plaintiffs, several former employees who had worked in that unit and been denied severance, filed a breach of contract action against Tyco. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees and awarded the severance pay. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 preempted Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claims. View "Arsenio Colorado v. Tyco Valves & Controls, L.P." on Justia Law

In 2006 Finkl, a Chicago steel producer, initiated termination of its defined benefit pension plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, apparently anticipating merger with another company. The Plan was amended in 2008, to include Section 11.6, a special provision for distributions in connection with the contemplated termination, to apply if a participant “ha[d] not begun to receive a benefit under the Plan at the time benefits are to be distributed on account of termination of the Plan.” In May 2008, Finkl decided not to terminate the Plan. Section 11.6 was deleted. Finkl notified the IRS that the Plan was not going to terminate. Seven Finkl employees sued, alleging that they were entitled to an immediate distribution of benefits while they were still working for Finkl and that repeal of Section 11.6 violated the anti-cutback terms of the Plan, I.R.C. 411(d)(6), and ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g). The IRS sent Finkl a favorable determination letter that the Plan had retained its tax qualified status. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of summary judgment to Finkl. The employees then pursued a claim in the Tax Court, which ruled that they were collaterally estopped by the Seventh Circuit decision from challenging the 2009, determination letter, which concluded that the Plan had not been terminated and continued to qualify for favorable tax treatment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Union-affiliated benefit funds (collectively, the Fund) sued Employer to recover unpaid employee-related remittances allegedly due under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund also sought attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to both the CBA and ERISA. The district judge awarded the Fund $26,897 in damages, and, in a separate judgment, awarded $18,000 in attorneys’ fees and $16,688 in expenses. Both parties appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s determination of damages, but the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the damage judgment. On remand, the First Circuit reinstated the cross-appeals challenging the separate judgment for fees and costs and affirmed the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses, holding that the award was not an abuse of the judge’s discretion. View "Int’l Union v. Ray Haluch Gravel Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who worked for Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”), made a claim for long-term disability benefits (LTD). In 2005, the claim was approved. That same year, MetLife denied Plaintiff’s assertion that he was entitled to a larger payment calculation. In 2012, Plaintiff filed suit against MetLife under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), claiming that MetLife had been underpaying his monthly benefits since 2005. The district court granted MetLife’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Plaintiff’s theory that the LTD plan must be analogized to an installment plan so as to alter the accrual date of his claim, holding that Plaintiff’s claim against MetLife was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Riley v. Metro. Life Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Open Harvest on plaintiff's claim alleging a violation of section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1140. Because plaintiff has not identified direct evidence of a specific intent to interfere with her ERISA benefits, the court must analyze her claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. In this case, Open Harvest articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for its failure to pay the August policy premium. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden shifted back to plaintiff to show a genuine dispute whether Open Harvest's justification was pretextual. Plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute whether Open Harvest terminated her employment with a specific intent to interfere with her ERISA benefits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Open Harvest. View "Barnhardt v. Open Harvest Cooperative" on Justia Law

Javery began working for Lucent as a software engineer in 1998 and participated in Lucent’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, qualified disability plan, administered by CIGNA. In November 2002, he reported back pain. His family doctor, Dr. Dorado, prescribed medicine and testing, and recommended some time off work. In January 2003, after Lucent transferred him from Ohio to Illinois, Javery sought treatment from another physician, Seymour. The pain worsened. In May 2005, Javery stopped working on Dr. Seymour’s advice. Lucent approved and paid short term disability benefits from until those benefits expired in November 2005. Lucent notified CIGNA that it believed Javery might be eligible for long term benefits. Javery applied, submitting extensive medical evidence of his pain and resulting cognitive impairment and of his successful application for Social Security disability benefits, but the claim was denied. In addition to claiming that Javery had not shown that he was “disabled” as that term is defined in the Plan, CIGNA claimed that Javery should be judicially estopped from pursuing his ERISA claim because Javery failed to disclose the claim in his Chapter 13 personal bankruptcy action. The district court upheld the denial. The Sixth Circuit reversed. View "Javery v. Lucent Tech., Inc. Long-Term Disability Plan" on Justia Law

The Railroad owns the Corwith Rail Yard in Chicago and, until 2010, used an independent contractor, RTS, to operate Corwith. Teamsters Local Union 705 represented RTS employees, who were covered by the union’s health-and-pension plan. The Railroad contributed to the plan, as required by its contract with RTS. In 2010 the Railroad obtained wage-and-benefits concessions from Local 705. But when the Railroad ended its relationship with RTS and moved the Corwith work in-house, it entered into a bargaining agreement with a different union, TCIU. RTS terminated the employment of its Corwith employees. The employees could reapply with the Railroad, but its compensation package with TCIU was not as generous. Local 705 and employees filed a proposed class action, alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001 and conspiracy to violate ERISA. The district court dismissed. On appeal, the plaintiffs alleged unlawful interference with the attainment of retirement benefits in violation of ERISA and a related conspiracy claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plaintiffs alleged only an unlawful “discharge,” which presupposes an employment relationship. Only RTS was in an employment relationship with the membersof Local 705. The complaint alleged that RTS discharged the employees because it lost its contract, not for the purpose of interfering with their attainment of pension benefits. ERISA does not provide a cause of action for conspiracy. View "Teamsters Local Union No. 705l v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC" on Justia Law