Pension Benefit Claims

Subscribe to Pension Benefit Claims via RSS

This week’s notable decision is O’Rourke v. N. California Elec. Workers Pension Plan, No. 17-17419, __F.3d__, 2019 WL 3850604 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2019), a case involving a dispute over the payment of early retirement benefits through a multiemployer ERISA plan.  The court was tasked with deciding whether Defendant abused its discretion by determining that Plaintiff’s work as an administrator for an electrical workers’ union falls within the Plan’s definition of “Prohibited Employment.”  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan’s board of trustees (“Board”), and for the reasons below, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision.  

The Plan provides for an early retirement benefit for participants at age fifty-five if they have accumulated ten or more years of covered employment.  No benefits are paid for either normal pensions or early pensions for any month in which a participant works in “Prohibited Employment.”  For participants under the age sixty-five, the Plan defines “Prohibited Employment” as “the performance of services in any capacity in the Electrical Industry.”  “Electrical Industry” is defined as “all branches of the Electrical Trade in the United States.” The Plan does not define “Electrical Trade.” 
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds Pension Plan’s Denial of Early Retirement Benefits for Participant’s Union Work

Happy Sunday, ERISA Watchers!  I’m glad to be able to report some good news in the post-Tackett world of retiree medical.  In this week’s notable decision, Kelly v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 17-2075, __F.3d__, 2019 WL 3673139 (2d Cir. Aug. 7, 2019), the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the retirees, and their surviving spouses, whose medical benefits it determined had vested before the expiration of the effects bargaining agreement (“EBA”).  The court also affirmed the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining Honeywell from terminating medical benefits vested after the EBA expired.

All of this started after the Supreme Court’s decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, ––– U.S. –––, 135 S. Ct. 926, 190 L.Ed.2d 809 (2015), which prompted Honeywell to review its collective bargaining agreements.  Believing it was justified to terminate the retiree medical coverage it had been providing Plaintiffs for over 15 years, Honeywell announced that it was doing so effective December 31, 2016.  As a result of the various lower court proceedings, however, Honeywell has continued to provide medical coverage to the retirees.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds Employer to Promise of Lifetime Retiree Medical Benefits

Happy Sunday, ERISA Watchers!  This week I want to highlight two unpublished decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which are plan participant friendly.  The first case, Odle v. UMWA 1974 Pension Plan, No. 18-1398, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 2539260 (4th Cir. June 20, 2019), involves a dispute over the amount of a survivor’s annuity benefit award under the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan.  The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Plan and remanded for further proceedings.  The court found that the Plan erred by denying Plaintiff the opportunity to review the Dale Coal audit during the administrative process because it prejudiced her ability to pursue further investigation and argument in support of her claim.  The audit documented potentially fraudulent underreporting of classified hours and Plaintiff must be given the opportunity to contest the Plan’s denial based on a full disclosure of documents relevant to her claim.  The court explained that “procedural guidelines including the right to a full and fair review ‘are at the foundation of ERISA.’”  
Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Enforces the Right to a Full and Fair Review under ERISA