Hello, ERISA Watchers!  Since Wednesday’s mid-week report, there were not any more exciting circuit court decisions.  Today, I want to highlight a preemption decision out of my backyard in California Hotels and Lodging Association v. The City of Oakland, No. 19-CV-01232-WHO, 2019 WL 2617057 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2019).  In November 2018, Oakland voters passed Measure Z which asked:

Shall the measure amending Oakland’s Municipal Code to: (1) establish workplace protections and minimum hourly wage of $15 with benefits or $20 without benefits, increasing annually with inflation, for employees of Oakland hotels with 50 or more guest rooms; (2) authorize administrative enforcement standards for hotel and non-hotel workers; and (3) create City department to administratively enforce Oakland’s employment standards for hotel and non-hotel workers, be adopted? Continue Reading Court Finds that Wage/Benefit Ordinance for Hotel Workers Is Not Preempted by ERISA

Hello, ERISA Watchers!  I’m bringing you this mid-week report to share yesterday’s stunning decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Fessenden v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 18-1346, __F.3d__, 2019 WL 2589122 (7th Cir. June 25, 2019). Circuit Judge Barrett, authoring the panel opinion, explained that Reliance Standard could not enjoy deferential review because it blew its deadline to decide Fessenden’s appeal for long-term disability benefits.  This is significant because some circuits allow plan administrators to claim “substantial compliance” when not meeting their deadlines to decide claims or appeals and invoke little or no penalty for these transgressions.  The Seventh Circuit has made it clear to plan administrators:  substantial compliance does not apply to ERISA’s regulatory deadlines.  Make a decision on time or be subject to de novo review. Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Holds that “Substantial Compliance” Does Not Apply to Blown Deadlines

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  This week I want to highlight two unpublished decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which are plan participant friendly.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