Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

In this case, several former employees of a seafood company participated in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) that was funded by a $92 million loan used to purchase all outstanding company stock from four directors and officers. The plaintiffs alleged that these directors and officers manipulated sales projections and inventory figures to inflate the stock’s valuation, causing the ESOP to overpay by tens of millions of dollars. They further claimed that the plan’s trustee failed to conduct proper due diligence before agreeing to the purchase price. The plaintiffs sought restoration of plan losses, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief under ERISA, asserting breaches of fiduciary duty.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia without first exhausting the plan’s internal administrative remedies, despite acknowledging that the plan provided such procedures. They argued that exhaustion was not required for their claims and, alternatively, that they were excused from exhausting due to futility and inadequacy of the remedy. The defendants moved to dismiss on exhaustion grounds. The district court granted the motions, finding that Eleventh Circuit precedent required exhaustion for ERISA claims, and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for excusal. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for a stay to allow exhaustion, but did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that ERISA plaintiffs must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, including for breach of fiduciary duty claims, and that no valid excuse relieved the plaintiffs of this obligation. The court also remanded the case for the district court to clarify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. View "Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America, Inc." on Justia Law

NCR Corporation established five “top hat” retirement plans to provide supplemental life annuity benefits to senior executives. Each plan promised participants a fixed monthly payment for life, with language allowing NCR to terminate the plans so long as no action “adversely affected” any participant’s accrued benefits. In 2013, NCR terminated the plans and paid participants lump sums it claimed were actuarially equivalent to the promised annuities, using mortality tables, actuarial calculations, and a 5% discount rate. NCR knew that, statistically, about half of the participants would outlive the lump sums if they continued to withdraw the same monthly benefit, resulting in some participants receiving less than they would have under the original annuity.Participants filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging breach of contract and seeking either replacement annuities or sufficient cash to purchase equivalent annuities. The district court certified the class and granted summary judgment for the participants, finding that NCR’s lump-sum payments adversely affected the accrued benefits of at least some participants, in violation of the plan language. The court ordered NCR to pay the difference between the lump sums and the cost of replacement annuities, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plan language was unambiguous and did not permit NCR to unilaterally replace life annuities with lump sums that reduced the value of accrued benefits for any participant. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, including the remedy of requiring NCR to pay the cost of replacement annuities and awarding prejudgment interest. View "Hoak v. NCR Corp." on Justia Law

Perfection Bakeries Inc. paid into the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store International Union’s Industry Pension Fund for its employees in Michigan and Indiana. The company later ceased contributions, first in Michigan and then in Indiana, incurring "withdrawal liability" under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. The Fund calculated this liability using a four-step formula outlined in 29 U.S.C. § 1381. Perfection Bakeries challenged the Fund's calculation, arguing that a specific calculation was performed at the wrong step.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama reviewed the case. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund, holding that the statutory text unambiguously required the credit to be applied as part of the second adjustment step.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Fund correctly applied the partial-withdrawal credit at step two of the four-step formula. The court concluded that the statute's language and structure supported the Fund's interpretation, which incorporated all of section 1386, including the credit for previous partial withdrawals, at step two. The court found that this interpretation was consistent with the statutory context and the repeated cross-references to section 1386 throughout the four-step formula. The court rejected Perfection Bakeries' arguments, including the contention that the partial-withdrawal credit should be applied after all four steps, and upheld the Fund's calculation method. View "Perfection Bakeries Inc v. Retail Wholesale & Dept Store International Union" on Justia Law

Laurence Bonday, a former employee of Nalco Company LLC, filed an arbitration demand against Nalco, alleging that the company violated its severance plan by demoting him without offering severance pay. Nalco argued that a court needed to determine the scope of the arbitration agreement before proceeding. However, the arbitrator concluded that Bonday’s severance claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarded him nothing on that claim. Instead, the arbitrator awarded Bonday $129,465.50 on an ERISA discrimination claim that he never raised.Nalco moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by deciding the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarding relief on a claim Bonday never made. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Nalco's motion, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by interpreting the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarding relief on an unraised ERISA discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by granting relief on an ERISA discrimination claim that Bonday did not submit for arbitration. The court emphasized that an arbitrator can only bind the parties on issues they have agreed to submit and that the arbitrator's decision to award relief on an unsubmitted claim was beyond her authority. The court did not address the district court's first reason for vacating the award, as the second reason was sufficient to affirm the decision. View "Nalco Company LLC v. Bonday" on Justia Law

WestRock filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., challenging an action taken by the Pace Industry Union-Management Pension Fund's Board of Trustees. The district court agreed with the Fund that ERISA provided no cause of action and granted the Fund’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that WestRock has not properly alleged that the Amendment (the Fund's rehabilitation plan) violates 29 U.S.C. 1085 in a manner sufficient to bring a cause of action under Subsection B of 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10). Furthermore, the text of 29 U.S.C. 1451(a) does not support WestRock's reading that the Amendment imposes an additional liability on WestRock if it withdraws and therefore section 1451(a) provides it with a cause of action to challenge the Amendment. View "WestRock RKT v. Pace Industry Union" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., seeking benefits for continued partial hospital treatment for her anorexia, which were denied on the ground that the level of care she sought was not medically necessary. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for Oxford. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record in the case, and with the benefit of oral argument presented to the court, the court concluded that the district court correctly decided that the record of the external review is properly before the district court in this ERISA case. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the adverse external review decision barred plaintiff from presenting her challenge to the adverse medical necessity determination. Because the external review process does not conflict with ERISA, it is not preempted. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Alexandra H. v. Oxford Health Ins." on Justia Law