Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Home health care plaintiffs sought to prevent the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, from enforcing the Wage Parity Law, which sets the minimum amount of total compensation that employers must pay home care aides in order to receive Medicaid reimbursements for reimbursable care provided in New York City and Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau Counties, N.Y. Pub. Health Law 3614‐c. Plaintiffs claim the Law was either preempted by the National Labor Relations 8 Act, 29 U.S.C. 151, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, or was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court conclusion that the state law, except for one severable provision subdivision that singles out Taft‐Hartley plans for special treatment, is neither preempted nor unconstitutional. View "Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Cottillion worked at United from 1960 until 1989; his benefits had vested under “the 1980 Plan.” Cottillion, then age 54, was among “terminated vested participants” (TVPs), distinct from Early Retirees, who retired at an age older than 59½ or 60, but younger than 65. United informed Cottillion that he could elect to have his monthly retirement benefit begin after October, 1995 (age 60), and that his monthly benefit would be $573.70 at age 60. The letter did not state that the amount depended on whether he elected to receive it at age 60 or later. In 2002, United amended the plan, to comply with Employee Retirement Income Security Act amendments, and receive favorable tax treatment. Later Plans included language, absent from the 1980 and 1987 Plans, stating that the benefits of TVPs who receive pensions before age 65 would be “actuarially reduced to reflect the earlier starting date.” In 2005, actuaries informed the plan that United had erroneously paid pensions that were not “actuarially reduced” to TVPs vested under the 1980 and 1987 Plans. Because deviations from the terms of ERISA-governed plans can jeopardize favorable tax treatment, United sought recoupment under the IRS’s voluntary correction program. Cottillion’s pension was eliminated, and he was told he should pay the Plan $14,475. The district court granted class certification and held that United’s actions violated ERISA's anti-cutback rule, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g). The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Cottillion v. United Ref. Co" on Justia Law

In 2000, Rochow sold his interest in Universico to Gallagher and became President of Gallagher. As Gallagher employee, Rochow was covered under a LINA disability policy. In 2001, Rochow began to experience short term memory loss, chills, sweating, and stress. Gallagher demoted Rochow and forced Rochow to resign in January, 2002. In February 2002, Rochow experienced amnesia, was hospitalized, and was diagnosed with HSV-Encephalitis, a rare, severely debilitating brain infection. LINA repeatedly denied Rochow benefits stating that Rochow’s employment ended before his disability began. Rochow sued Cigna, LINA’s parent company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1104(a). In 2007 the Sixth Circuit affirmed a decision that denial of Rochow’s claims was arbitrary and did not appear to have been made solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries or the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries as required by ERISA. Rochow died in 2008. In 2009, the district court ordered an equitable accounting of profits and disgorgement of $3,797,867 under an equitable theory of unjust enrichment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in 2013. Following rehearing en banc, the Sixth Circuit later vacated the disgorgement award and remanded the case to determine whether Rochow is entitled to prejudgment interest. View "Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants represent a class of retirees formerly employed by Sprint-Nextel Corporation, Embarq Corporation (or a predecessor and/or subsidiary company of either Embarq or Sprint). Plaintiffs sued after Defendants altered or eliminated health and life insurance benefits for retirees. Plaintiffs asserted Defendants: (1) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by breaching their contractual obligation to provide vested health and life insurance benefits; (2) breached their fiduciary duty by, inter alia, misrepresenting the terms of multiple welfare benefit plans; and (3) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and applicable state laws by reducing or eliminating the same benefits. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claims, the ADEA claims, the state-law age discrimination claims, and some of the contractual vesting claims. The district court granted Defendants’ motions in part and Plaintiffs obtained a Rule 54(b) certification. The Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants did not contractually agree to provide Plaintiffs with lifetime health or life insurance benefits and thus affirmed in part the grant of summary judgment as to the contractual vesting claims. To the extent the district court granted summary judgment against class members whose contractual vesting claims arise, in whole or in part, from summary plan descriptions (other than those identified in Defendants’ motion), the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment against those class members. The Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) and reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining breach of fiduciary duty claims to the extent those claims were premised on a fraud theory. Finally, because Defendants’ decision to reduce or terminate the group life insurance benefit was based on a reasonable factor other than age, their actions did not violate the ADEA, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on those claims. View "Fulghum v. Embarq Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against PBGC, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and seeking to correct PBGC's benefit determinations. The court concluded that PBGC properly interpreted the provisions of ERISA and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to provide shutdown benefits to plaintiff; PBGC properly interpreted ERISA and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to insure plaintiff's individual account; and, assuming arguendo that PBGC in fact amended the pension plan, plaintiff cannot identify a statutory provision that bars PBGC from doing so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to PBGC. View "Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp." on Justia Law

National Retirement Fund sought to hold Mezz Lender and Oaktree Capital responsible for multiemployer pension fund withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 1381. Oaktree, through Mezz Lender, provided financing for the acquisition of a hotel by Chicago H&S. When H&S defaulted, it was taken into bankruptcy and the hotel was liquidated. NRF contends that the sale of the hotel triggered withdrawal liability on the part of H&S and any other “trade or business” under common control with it, including bot Oaktree and Mezz Lender. Oaktree and Mezz Lender, argued that the claim of withdrawal liability was barred by the bankruptcy reorganization plan pursuant to which the hotel was sold. On motions for summary judgment, the court stated that having decided that Oaktree and Mezz were not jointly and severally liable for H&S’s withdrawal liability, "the Court need not address the parties’ arguments as to [the Oaktree parties’] motion" concerning the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The court decided in the absence of a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue that it found to be dispositive, and without first giving the unsuccessful movant notice that it was entertaining the possibility of entering summary judgment against it or the opportunity to respond. View "Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. National Retirement Fund" on Justia Law

The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee appealed the district court's holding that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to order that he and his retained professionals be compensated for their services using the assets of a 401(k) plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court concluded that, in this case, no "arising under" jurisdiction exists and no "related to" jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, the court concluded that bankruptcy courts do not have jurisdiction to award compensation to the trustee in these circumstances and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kirschenbaum v. U.S. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Before his retirement, Asa Williams, Sr. participated in various benefit programs (the Xerox Plans), which are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Asa married Carmen and designated Carmen as his beneficiary. After their divorce, Asa attempted to change his designated beneficiary from his ex-wife to his son (Asa, Jr.). After Asa, Sr.'s death, Carmen claimed to be the beneficiary under the Xerox Plans and Asa, Jr. likewise asserted the same claim. Carmen subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting that because Asa, Sr. failed to fill out and to return the beneficiary designation forms, he did not properly designate Asa, Jr. as beneficiary in her place. The district court granted the motion. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that Asa, Sr. was required to abide by the language contained in the forms - but not in the governing plan documents - to change his beneficiary from Carmen to Asa, Jr. Reviewing de novo whether Carmen or Asa, Jr. is entitled to plan benefits, the court concluded that based on the evidence, including Xerox's call log reflecting that Asa, Sr. called Xerox to change his beneficiary designation from Carmen to Asa, Jr., a reasonable trier of fact could determine that Asa, Sr. intended to change his beneficiary to Asa, Jr. and that his phone calls to Xerox constituted substantial compliance with the governing plan documents' requirements for changing his beneficiary designation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Mays-Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

M&G purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant in 2000 and entered a collective bargaining agreement and a related Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement with the union, providing that certain retirees, surviving spouses, and dependents, would “receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of [health care] benefits”; that such benefits would be provided “for the duration of [the] Agreement”; and that the Agreement would be subject to renegotiation in three years. After the expiration, M&G announced that it would require retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits. Retirees sued, alleging that the 2000 Agreement created a vested right to lifetime contribution-free health care benefits. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of the retirees; the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, noting that welfare benefits plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1051(1), 1053, 1081(a)(2), 1083, and applying ordinary principles of contract law. The Court stated that Sixth Circuit precedent distorts ordinary principles of contract law, which attempt to ascertain the intention of the parties, “by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements.” The Sixth Circuit did not consider the rules that courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises and that “contractual obligations will cease, in the ordinary course, upon termination of the bargaining agreement.” View "M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett" on Justia Law

John and Melissa married in 1984. John enrolled in his employer’s retirement plan and designated Melissa as the beneficiary of a qualified joint and survivor annuity. John retired in 1994. The survivor annuity irrevocably vested in Melissa; John began receiving benefits. In2002, they divorced, agreeing to a decree awarding John all “benefits existing by reason of [John’s] past, present, or future employment.” John remarried and sought to designate his new wife as the survivor annuity beneficiary. The plan advised John that this designation would be permissible if done by qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that would not require the plan to increase benefits beyond actuarial estimates of John’s and Melissa’s life expectancies, 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(D). On John’s motion, a Texas court entered a purported QDRO divesting Melissa of all ownership interests in the survivor annuity. The employer terminated its pension plan. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) became the plan’s statutory trustee and determined that the supposed QDRO was invalid because it would require “a form of benefit, or [an] option, not otherwise provided under the plan” and because, unless waived in accordance with statutory procedures within 90 days, a spouse’s right to the survivor annuity irrevocably vests on the annuity start date. The district court upheld the determination and found John’s contract and unjust enrichment claims against Melissa preempted. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. View "Vanderkam v. Vanderkam" on Justia Law