Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

The collective bargaining agreement was scheduled to expire. During negotiations, the union disclaimed representation of the company's employees and terminated the collective bargaining process. The company then withdrew from the multiemployer pension plan. The pension fund imposed withdrawal liability and assessed $57,291.50, 29 U.S.C. 1399. The company demanded indemnification from the union pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, which stated: "The Union shall indemnify the Company for any contingent liability which may be imposed under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980." The district court concluded that an arbitration provision was enforceable. The arbitrator ordered the union to pay. The district court upheld the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that it would violate public policy for a union to indemnify an employer for any contingent liability to a pension plan established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461. View "Shelter Distrib., Inc. v. Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local No. 89" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a class action against their former employer, Siemens, and its retirement plans, claiming violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in refusing to provide permanent job separation (PJS) pension benefits when Siemens terminated their employment. The Third Circuit reversed in part and directed entry of judgment in favor of Siemens on all issues. By their plain terms, the Siemens plans do not provide for PJS benefits. Siemens did not establish an ERISA section 204 "transition" plan by virtue of 13-day arrangement in 1998 that was part of Siemens' purchase of a business unit from Westinghouse, nor was Siemens obligated to provide PJS benefits under section 208, based on the purchase from Westinghouse. View "Shaver v. Siemens Corp." on Justia Law

The employer sought an early withdrawal from its obligation to make pension contributions to a multiemployer pension fund; it entered into a new collective bargaining agreement, six weeks before expiration of the existing agreement, that abrogated its obligation to make payments to the fund. The fund sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1145. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the fund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the agreement was ambiguous in providing that the employer could not “prospectively” change its obligation.View "Cent. States SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Waste Mgmt of MI, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the district court found that plaintiff's claims against defendant were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., because they arose under defendant's Pension Plan (Plan) and not separately and independently out of plaintiff's written employment agreement (Agreement). On appeal, plaintiff argued that the additional benefits he sought were based on a promise separate and independent from the Plan. The court held that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA where the Agreement merely described the benefits plaintiff would receive as a Plan member and it made no promises of benefits separate and independent from the benefits under the Plan. The suit was properly removed to federal court, the district court had federal jurisdiction over the case, and remand to state court was not warranted. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for failure to state a plausible claim. Finally, the court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Arditi v. Lighthouse Int'l" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her claims against her former employer for defamation; breach of a unilateral contract to pay a performance bonus; failure to timely pay wages after discharge in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.13(a); age discrimination; and interference with her rights to employee benefits in violation of section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1140, and the court's denial of her motion to continue the summary judgment proceedings. The court agreed with the district court that the employer was entitled to the qualified privilege as a matter of law for plaintiff's defamation claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the breach of contract and unpaid wages claims because all the employer's documents clearly stated that the awarding of bonuses was discretionary. The court further held that the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's age discrimination claim where plaintiff failed to show that either of her replacements were "sufficiently younger" or that there was a material question of fact regarding pretext; the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employee benefit plan interference under section 510 of ERISA; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for continuance. View "Chambers v. The Travelers Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

Abbott created Hospira for its Hospital Products Division. Before the spin-off, HPD employees had access to Abbott's pension plan. Hospira did not offer a pension plan. The spin-off included reciprocal two-year no-hire policies. When HPD employees became Hospira employees, non-vested pension rights in the Abbott plan were eliminated. Retirement-eligible HPD employees were effectively prevented from retiring from Abbott then joining Hospira. A certified class of Hospira employees alleged that violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1140, by using the spin and no-hire policy to get rid of pension liability and deter HPD employees from exercising pension benefits before the spin. They alleged that Abbott breached its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose that Hospira would not offer pension benefits. The district court entered judgment for Abbott and Hospira on all counts. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. ERISA claims failed because Abbott and Hospira did not act with the requisite intent to interfere with plaintiffs' pension benefits. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim failed because Abbott had nothing to do with the Hospira benefits plan and because Abbott reported truthfully to HPD employees that benefits might change after the spin. View "Nauman v. Abbott Labs., Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the Railway Labor Act's (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151, 181, exclusive and mandatory dispute resolution process that applied to plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs argue that the RLA did not apply to them because they were no longer "employees" as contemplated by the RLA. Alternatively, plaintiffs argued that even if the RLA applied to them as former employees, they complied with the terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which allowed them to bring an action in federal district court pursuant to section 501(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court held that plaintiffs were employees under the RLA pursuant to Supreme Court precedent. In the alternative, plaintiffs were explicitly looking for a "contracted-for" judicial remedy following an adverse RLA-established Retirement Board ruling without showing any of the narrow exceptions to RLA exclusivity. Therefore, the court declined to depart from established precedent preventing parties from creating federal court jurisdiction where there was none. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Ballew, et al. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing as time-barred their putative class action complaint against their former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs asserted that the district court erred when it looked past the six-year New York limitations period for contract actions; applied part of the New York regime known as the "borrowing statute," which directed it to Pennsylvania law; and ruled that Pennsylvania's four-year limitations period barred plaintiffs' claims. The court held that in an action for benefits under 29 U.S.C. 1132, the court applied the forums state's statute of limitations, including its borrowing statute. Therefore, the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute and plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law. View "Muto, et al. v. CBS Corp." on Justia Law

The former trustees of the Plasterers' Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan appealed from the judgment of the district court in favor of the current trustees of the Plan. The district court's judgment was based on its finding that the former trustees breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., regarding the investment Plan assets set forth under 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(B) and (C). On appeal, the former trustees challenged the district court's determination as to liability, its method of calculating damages, and the award of attorney fees. The court concluded that the district court erred as to each of these issues and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Plasterer's Local Union No. 96 v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife. The district court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,571,723.73, which included the principal amount, accumulated earnings and pre-judgment interest. On appeal, defendant argued that enforcement of the judgment was prohibited by the terms of the pension agreement, ERISA's anti-alienation provision, and other provisions of federal and state law. Defendant also argued that the district court's award of accumulated earnings was inconsistent with the court's decision in Dobson v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Applying the appropriate standards of review, the court found defendant's arguments were without merit and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Milgrim v. Orthopedic Assoc." on Justia Law