Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

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

Respondents, on behalf of beneficiaries of the CIGNA Corporation's ("CIGNA") Pension Plan, challenged the new plan's adoption, claiming that CIGNA's notice of the changes was improper, particularly because the new plan in certain respects provided them with less generous benefits. At issue was whether the district court applied the correct legal standard, namely, a "likely harm" standard, in determining that CIGNA's notice violations caused its employees sufficient injury to warrant legal relief. The Court held that although section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1022(a), 1024(b), 1054(h), did not give the district court authority to reform CIGNA's plan, relief was authorized by section 502(a)(3), which allowed a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary "to obtain other appropriate relief" to redress violations of ERISA "or the [plan's] terms." The Court also held that, because section 502(a)(3) authorized "appropriate equitable relief" for violations of ERISA, the relevant standard of harm would depend on the equitable theory by which the district court provided relief. Therefore, the Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "CIGNA Corp. v. Amara et al." on Justia Law

In 1999 Brooks, an assembly-line operator for Prairie Packaging, was seriously injured on the job and lost his left hand, wrist, and forearm. He filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking recovery for permanent and total disability, which remains pending. Prairie treated Brooks as a disabled employee on a company-approved leave of absence, so that he continued to receive healthcare coverage. Pactiv acquired Prairie in 2007 and continued this arrangement. In 2010 Pactiv sent Brooks a letter instructing him to submit documents verifying his ability to return to work; failure to submit would mean termination of employment. Because his injury was totally disabling, Brooks did not submit verification and Pactiv fired him; he lost his healthcare coverage under the employee-benefits plan. Brooks sued Pactiv and Prairie under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001–1461, for benefits due and breach of fiduciary duty and asserted an Illinois law claim for retaliatory discharge. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to ERISA because Brooks did not allege that the employee-benefits plan promised him post-employment benefits. Pactiv acted as an employer, not as a fiduciary, in terminating Brooks’s employment and cancelling his health insurance. The court reinstated the state law claim. View "Brooks v. Pactiv Corp." on Justia Law

Laskin worked for Jefco from 1966-1974 and participated in the company pension plan, accumulating a fully vested retirement account balance of $5,976.09. Soon after she left the company Laskin contacted Siegel, a trustee of the pension plan, and asked whether she could withdraw the funds to buy real estate. Siegel sent Laskin a letter explaining that her account would accrue interest at the passbook rate and that the plan had been amended in 1975, raising the retirement eligibility age from 55 to 65. Over the next 10 years, Laskin received statements, indicating that she was receiving from 5% to 5.5% interest on her balance. In 1988, a statement indicated that her balance was $12,602.86. The pension plan dissolved on December 31, 1991. In 2008, Laskin contacted Siegel’s son (who had purchased his father’s interest in Jefco) and was told that pension funds had been completely disbursed and that she did not receive a payout because she could not be located. The district court dismissed her claims as barred by the limitations period in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Laskin v. Siegel" on Justia Law

Laskin worked for Jefco from 1966-1974 and participated in the company pension plan, accumulating a fully vested retirement account balance of $5,976.09. Soon after she left the company Laskin contacted Siegel, a trustee of the pension plan, and asked whether she could withdraw the funds to buy real estate. Siegel sent Laskin a letter explaining that her account would accrue interest at the passbook rate and that the plan had been amended in 1975, raising the retirement eligibility age from 55 to 65. Over the next 10 years, Laskin received statements, indicating that she was receiving from 5% to 5.5% interest on her balance. In 1988, a statement indicated that her balance was $12,602.86. The pension plan dissolved on December 31, 1991. In 2008, Laskin contacted Siegel’s son (who had purchased his father’s interest in Jefco) and was told that pension funds had been completely disbursed and that she did not receive a payout because she could not be located. The district court dismissed her claims as barred by the limitations period in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Laskin v. Siegel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their former employer seeking deferred compensation payments. The district court held that plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements in their Employment Agreement contracts with the employer constituted a plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Because plaintiffs' deferred compensation arrangements did not necessitate an ongoing administrative scheme, there was no ERISA plan. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that plaintiffs' state law claims were not preempted by ERISA. View "Cantrell, et al. v. Briggs & Veselka Co." on Justia Law

Debtor was required to make contributions to the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund pursuant to a multiemployer bargaining agreement (the Agreement). When the Agreement expired, debtor no longer was a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement and stopped making payments. The Fund subsequently filed suit because debtor was still doing work covered by the Agreement and was subject to withdrawal liability under 29 U.S.C. 1381. Debtor then filed for bankruptcy and sought a discharge of his debt to the Fund. The Fund filed a complaint under 11 U.S.C. 523(c) to prevent discharge, seeking to establish that the debt qualified as one created via defalcation by a fiduciary under section 523(a)(4). The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dischargeability of the Fund's claim against debtor; debtor was not a fiduciary of the Fund because the unpaid withdrawal liability was not an asset of the Fund; and debtor's failure to challenge the withdrawal liability amount in arbitration did not act as a waiver of his right to discharge the debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Moxley" on Justia Law