Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued his former employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq., to recover profit sharing and retirement benefits that were allegedly withheld from him. The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiff on his claims that the employer breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty and violated ERISA's disclosure requirements. The district court also awarded plaintiff statutory penalties and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the district court's award of damages for breach of fiduciary duty and attorney's fees. The court held, however, that the summary allocation report contained no information about how a participant could elect to receive a rollover distribution, nor did it inform the participant of her rights under the profit-sharing plan. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court for additional findings on whether the employer failed to furnish plaintiff with the requisite documents under ERISA 104(b)(1), and if so, whether that omission served as a basis for statutory penalties. View "Kujanek v. Houston Poly Bag I, Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2007 employee retired when the steel plant, at which he had worked for 42 years, shut down. Under a plan negotiated by the union, his pension payment, without any offset, was $688.13 a month. Employee was told that payment of his pension would be deferred for more than 10 years because the plan required that employee pay back workers' compensation settlements that he had received after sustaining on-the-job injuries in 2005 and 2006. The plan refers to offset for payments for "disability in the nature of a permanent disability for which the Company is liable." The district court entered judgment for the employee. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The committee's decision was within its discretion; the plan's specific mention of workers' compensation supports its characterization. View "Frye v. Thompson Steel Co., Inc." on Justia Law

When an employee left the company in 1997, took a $47,850 lump sum distribution of his pension. He later believed that the payment should have included the present value of future cost of living adjustments that would have been included had he received his pension as an annuity. In 2002, he filed a class action suit. The district court granted summary judgment on liability in favor of the class and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that a COLA is an accrued benefit, as defined in ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1002(23)(A). Before the district court ruled, the parties reached a settlement that each early retiree would receive roughly 3.5% of her original lump sum, unless the COLA on a normal-retirement-age-based annuity outweighed her early-retirement subsidy, a rare situation. The district court approved the proposed settlement and awarded attorney's fees. Objectors were not allowed to opt out. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding determinations that the settlement was reasonable; that class counsel had adequately represented the early retirees and that further subclasses were unnecessary; that opt-out should be denied; and concerning attorney fees. View "Adamski v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan" on Justia Law

When plaintiff, a 14-year employee, was terminated from his position he negotiated a severance package based, in part, on his belief that he would be receiving a pension in a certain amount from the company's pension plan. The administrator for the plan, who was also the company's human resources manager, miscalculated. After signing off on the severance agreement, plaintiff learned of the error and brought an estoppel claim against the plan. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plan. Plaintiff did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary for the court to entertain a claim for estoppel against an ERISA Plan and there was no evidence of intentional misrepresentation or detrimental reliance. View "Pearson v. Voith Paper Rolls Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., action against defendant as not timely filed. Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a stockbroker in 1979 and starting in 1982, plaintiff had been disabled periodically from her employment. Plaintiff applied for long-term disability benefits around January 15, 1987. The court held that plaintiff's claim did not accrue in 1990 with regard to the ERISA statute of limitations, as the district court found, but rather accrued when her claim was finally denied on January 14, 2004. Therefore, plaintiff's action, filed on February 16, 2006, commenced within the four-year statutory limitations period for ERISA claims. The court also held that the limitations provision in the policy here did not apply to disability cases in which the claimant contested the amount of benefits or claims that the benefits have been miscalculated. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Withrow v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shield, Inc." on Justia Law

Retirees filed suit in district court contending that their retiree health benefits were vested and that defendant's intended modification would violate both the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). Retirees subsequently appealed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking continuation of certain healthcare benefits. The court held that the district court issued a thorough and well-reasoned opinion explaining in detail that the retirees failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. View "Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners Wayne Tomlinson, Alice Ballesteros and Gary Muckelroy appealed the dismissal of their claims against El Paso Corporation and the El Paso Pension Plan (collectively "El Paso") brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs' claims concern "wear-away" periods that occurred during El Paso's transition to a new pension plan. They contended that the wear-away periods violated the ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination and the anti-backloading and notice provisions of ERISA. The trial court found that El Paso's transition favored, rather than discriminated against, older employees; and the plan was frontloaded rather than backloaded. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit's review concluded that ERISA did not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees were informed and forewarned of plan changes. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing Petitioners' claims. View "Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant entered into an Employment Agreement with his employer before the employer entered into a merger. After defendant was terminated by his employer and post-merger disputes arose as to the amounts his employer owed him, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement's arbitration provision. The employer commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration as preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The employer alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the severance dispute "arises out of an [ERISA] employee benefit plan" and therefore state law claims were preempted, and supplemental jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1367 over non-ERISA claims. The court considered ERISA's statutory language, purpose, and historical context and held that an individual contract providing severance benefits to a single executive employee was not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 1002(1). The court also held that ERISA preempted state laws that "relate to" an employee benefit plan. Consequently, further questions arose because the Employment Agreement included two provisions that could "relate" to the Employment Agreement to other programs of the employer that were ERISA plans. As neither parties nor the district court considered this jurisdictional issue, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. Corp. v. Schieffer" on Justia Law

The company previously gave retirees credit toward their share of health care costs, based on unused sick-leave. Union workers could take that sum in cash or put it toward the premium. Executives who quit before retirement, or decided not to participate in the plan, did not receive any other form of compensation for unused leave. It had value only as a credit toward retirement health-care costs. In 2008 the company amended the plan and stopped paying any part of retirees' health-care costs. Money for employees who could have taken their balances in cash is put in an account administered by the health-care plan. Retirees, including executives who never had an option to take balances in cash, plus one who had that option but elected to leave the money on deposit, filed suit under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1081. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the company. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The company, which did not take anything out of the plan, but simply reduced the amount it would pay in, reserved the right to amend its health-care plan. It is a business decision, not a legal question, whether to use that authority to retirees’ detriment. View "Sullivan v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y" on Justia Law

After two years of contributing to a multiemployer pension plan established under a collective bargaining agreement, the company closed the covered facility, triggering withdrawal liability. The union notified the company of its liability under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 1301-1461, and set a 20-year schedule requiring payment of $652 per month. The union sent another letter, months later, saying that it had miscalculated monthly payments, but not the underlying withdrawal liability, and advised the company to increase monthly payments to $978. The company timely paid the original amount, but refused to pay the revised sum. The company requested arbitration, but after a finding that it was not required to pay the higher amount in the interim, withdrew. The district court dismissed the union's suit based on the calculation. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded without reaching the statutory interpretation issue, based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A plan may correct perceived errors in calculation and revise an assessment as long as the employer is not prejudiced. At that point the exhaustion provisions of the MPPAA apply to the revised assessment as they would to the original. View "Nat'l Shopmen Pension Fund v. DISA Indus., Inc." on Justia Law