Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

This case concerned a plumbers and pipefitters union ("the Union"), which established employee benefits plans. Among the pension benefits promised to Union employees were "banked hour" benefits, which were retroactively conferred during the course of employment. The Pension Trust sought to eliminate the benefits in an attempt to meet its obligations to a larger group of plan participants. Plaintiffs, now-retired union employees, filed this action against the Trustees, alleging that the cuts, which were effectuated through a plan amendment, violated the anti-cutback provisions ERISA, which protects "accrued benefits" against reduction by amendment. The district court entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' benefits were in fact "accrued" and that the plan amendment, if implemented, would violate the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA. View "Bonneau v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 51 Pension Trust Fund" on Justia Law

Pilots appealed the grant of summary judgment to PBGC on their claims regarding pension benefits payable under the terminated Retirement Income Plan for U.S. Airways Pilots. The court concluded that it need not resolve the parties' contentions regarding whether the PBGC was entitled to deference under Chevron when it acts as the trustee in an involuntary retirement plan termination; regardless, Pilots' claims relating to the PBGC's interpretation of 29 U.S.C. 1344 and regulations must fail; the court need not decide the level of deference due to the PBGC's interpretation of the Plan provisions because Pilots have not demonstrated Article III standing for part of one claim and their other claims failed regardless of the standard; and the court need not decide whether the decision in Davis v. PBGC regarding Pilots' request for a preliminary injunction was the law of the case on the standard of review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Davis, et al. v. PBGC" on Justia Law

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee “because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to [the Act],” 29 U.S.C. 1140. Sexton made a one-time unsolicited internal complaint to his employer about alleged violations of the ERISA, with respect to seating employees on the company’s board of directors. About six months later, the company fired Sexton from his job as a general manager. Sexton sued in Michigan state court for violating the state Whistleblower Protection Act and for breaching his employment contract. The company invoked complete preemption under ERISA and removed the case to federal court. Sexton did not challenge the company’s removal of the case or its use of complete preemption. The district court granted the company summary judgment on the ERISA claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Sexton’s breach-of-contract claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Sexton’s complaint did not amount to “giv[ing] information ... in any inquiry” under ERISA. View "Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Chairman of the Trustees of the Rhode Island Bricklayers Benefits Funds (the Funds), sued Union Stone Inc., alleging that Union Stone had failed to pay the full amount of fringe benefit contributions due for work performed in Massachusetts and Connecticut by members of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. After a trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Funds, awarding the unpaid contributions, interest, and attorneys' fees. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to enforce a purported settlement agreement between the parties; (2) admitting certain evidence on the ground that it was tainted by violations of the discovery rules; (3) declined to impose sanctions; and (4) awarding interest and attorneys' fees.View "Enos v. Union Stone, Inc." on Justia Law

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