ERISA Preemption

Subscribe to ERISA Preemption via RSS

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. California Secure Choice Ret. Sav. Program, No. 20-15591, 2021 WL 1805758, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. May 6, 2021) (Before Circuit Judges Hurwitz and Bress and District Judge Clifton L. Corker (E.D. Tenn.)).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 30 percent of private industry workers do not have access to an employer-provided retirement plan, amounting to almost 40 million employees. To combat this problem, many states (and the City of Seattle) have adopted government-run auto-enrollment retirement programs.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Determines CalSavers is Saved from ERISA Preemption

This week’s notable decision, Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt., Case No. 18-540, —S.Ct.—, 2020 WL 7250098 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2020), is a major win for consumers and pharmacies clearing the way for states to pass laws and implement regulations regulating pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), third party companies hired by insurers to adjudicate and reimburse pharmacies (many of them small) for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. At issue before the Court was an Arkansas state law, Act 900, which sought to regulate PBM reimbursement prices to pharmacies for the drugs that ERISA beneficiaries and participants obtained as part of their health plan coverage. The question presented to the Court was whether Act 900 was preempted by ERISA. 
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds ERISA Does Not Preempt Arkansas State Law Regulating Pharmacy Benefit Managers

This week’s notable decision is an unpublished ERISA preemption decision in Abernethy v. EmblemHealth, Inc., No. 19-422, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 5302825 (2d Cir. Oct. 21, 2019), where the Second Circuit revived the state law claims retired officers brought against EmblemHealth after they cancelled the officers’ retiree medical coverage.

The retirees claimed that they were entitled to continued medical coverage based on their employment and separation agreements.  The employment agreements provide that the employee “shall be entitled to participate in, and receive benefits under” any retiree health benefit plan provided by EmblemHealth, “subject to the terms of such plans, program or policies.” But, the agreement also disclaims that the employee has any vested interest in any employee benefit plan, which the company may, in its discretion, change or revoke.  The separation agreements state that the employee will be able to “commence Retiree Health Benefits at the same level as that provided an active officer.”
Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds Breach of Contract Claims for Retiree Medical Coverage Not Preempted by ERISA