Please read our Copyright Notice and Disclaimers before you use this resource.
Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. __ 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3962 (June 12, 2000)-SUPREME COURT RULES THAT A NONFIDUCIARY CAN BE LIABLE FOR PARTICIPATING IN A PROHIBITED TRANSACTION. See detailed analysis.
Pegram v. Herdrich, __ U.S. __, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3964 (June 12, 2000)-SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT TREATMENT DECISIONS OF HMOS ARE NOT FIDUCIARY ACTS. See detailed analysis.
Carpenters Local Union No. 26 v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 F.3d 136 (1st Cir. 2000) (unpublished)-The court concluded that ERISA does not preempt a Massachusetts bond law that required a general contractor on a public works project to post a bond covering labor and materials (including indebtedness incurred by subcontractors and suppliers for wages and fringe benefits). See detailed analysis.
Chandler v. Raytheon Employees Disability Trust, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 13997 (1st Cir. Jun 14, 2000) (unpublished)-Without discussion, this court affirmed the district court's finding that Met Life was not arbitrary and capricious in its decision to deny long-term disability benefits to Chandler on the basis that she was not "totally disabled." See detailed analysis.
Robbins v. DeBuono, 218 F.3d 197 (2nd Cir. 2000)-Nova H. Robbins sued representatives of the New York State Department of Health and the Monroe County Department of Social Services, alleging that in enforcing the policy of attributing or deeming income of an institutionalized spouse to a community spouse, they violated the anti-alienation provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 407 and of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). This court concluded that this method of determining maintenance needs did violate the Social Security Act's anti-alienation provision, but not those of ERISA, which "sweep far less broadly." See detailed analysis.
Demery v. Extebank Deferred Compensation Plan (B), 216 F.3d 283 (2nd Cir. 2000)-This court affirmed that a plan offered by Extebank to certain employees was a "top hat" plan, and therefore exempt from many provisions of ERISA. See detailed analysis.
Haran v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14114 (2nd Cir. June 15, 2000) (unpublished)-This court affirmed the summary judgment against 265 current and former employees of Dow Jones Markets, Inc. who sought severance benefits under an ERISA plan. See detailed analysis.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 215 F.3d 407 (3rd Cir. 2000)-The Third Circuit dealt with a company's attempt to rid itself of underfunded defined benefits plans through a sale. The court affirmed White Consolidated's "predecessor liability" under 29 U.S.C. § 1369. See detailed analysis.
Bigelow v. United Healthcare Of Mississippi, Inc., 213 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2000)-The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that a former employee of the City of Pass Christian was not entitled to insurance coverage for medical expenses incurred after the expiration of her 18 months of continuation coverage. See detailed analysis.
Duggins v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 217 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2000)-This court found that the district court erred in applying Louisiana law to the question of whether decedent C. Fred Newsom had properly designated his attorney as personal beneficiary of his ERISA plan (rather than simply as executor of his estate). See detailed analysis.
Corporate
Health Insur., Inc. v. Texas Department Of Insurance, 215 F.3d 526 (5th Cir.
2000)-The court
considered insurance companies' ERISA preemption challenge to Texas's Senate
Bill 386, which sought to regulate HMO's. It
concluded that ERISA did not pre-empt the bulk of the bill (the liability
provisions and the anti-retaliation and anti-indemnification provisions) while
ERISA did pre-empt the independent review provisions.
Bourgeois v. Pension Plan For The Employees Of Santa Fe International Corporations, 215 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2000)-The court addressed the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, where an employee "received the runaround" by company officials who never directed him to the appropriate administrative channels. The court vacated and remanded the case with instructions to refer the employee's claims to the Committee for an initial benefits determination on the merits—specifically estopping arguments that his claims were time-barred. See detailed analysis.
McMurtry v. Paul Revere Life Insur. Co., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14068 (6th Cir. June 12, 2000) (unpublished)-This court reversed the district court's judgment holding that McMurtry had a "vested" entitlement to lifetime total disability benefits. See detailed analysis.
Becker v. Midwest Stamping & Manufacturing Company Profit Sharing Plan, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15805 (6th Cir. June 29, 2000) (unpublished)-This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against Becker and other former employees of Midwest on their claim that Midwest violated 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), when it denied the employees a share of the sale of stock from ESOP held in escrow. See detailed analysis.
Treadway v. United Food And Commercial Workers International Union And Employers' Health & Welfare Fund, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14494 (6th Cir. June 20, 2000) (unpublished)-This court decided that the district court correctly applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review since the plan expressly granted discretion to the administrator to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe the terms of the plan agreement. Without delving into detail, this court stated that the Trustees' explanation for denial was a reasoned explanation based on the evidence, and therefore not arbitrary and capricious. See detailed analysis.
Richter v. Local 407, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14528 (6th Cir. June 20, 2000) (unpublished)-This court affirmed that district court's summary judgment against Richter's claim. Richter claimed that UPS improperly terminated his employment to interfere with his right to receive pension benefits, thus violating ERISA § 510. Without elaborating, the court noted that Richter failed to present evidence that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason advanced by UPS for terminating his employment was pretextual—the plaintiff's second required step after establishing a prima facie case of retaliation. See detailed analysis.
King v. National Human Resource Committee, Inc., 218 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2000)-Following the bankruptcy of their former employer, EWI, Inc., and purchase of its assets by Tecumseh Metal Products, Inc., a large group of union employees alleged violations of ERISA in the handling of their 401(k) plan. This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against the employees. See detailed analysis.
Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Company, Inc., 217 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2000)-Judge Posner clarified the test for whether language in a collective bargaining agreement (not an ERISA plan) creates vested rights to health benefits which survive the termination of the agreement. Although there is a default rule against vesting, or a presumption when "all the court has to go on is silence," either party can overcome this presumption if either party shows patent or latent ambiguity sufficient to require a trial on the meaning of the agreement. See Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1993) (en banc). See detailed analysis.
Dame v. First National Bank of Omaha,. 217 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2000)-Plan should distribute excess funds from single-employer defined benefit pension plan to employer under terms of benefit plan. District court did not err in declining to defer to arbitration. See detailed analysis.
Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds of Illinois v. McKenzie Engineering, 217 F.3d 578 (8th Cir. 2000)-In action for unpaid pension and welfare benefit payments, union failed to show the applicable collective bargaining agreements required employer to pay the amounts claimed in the union's audit, and the union failed to exhaust its remedies under the agreement; union's judgment reversed. See detailed analysis.
Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2000)-Following Van Gerwen's successful suit under 29 U.S.C.§ 1132, this dispute over attorneys' fees arose after the district court reduced her attorney's award on several grounds—including a 75% reduction based on the "poor quality" of the attorney's work. See detailed analysis.
Aparicio v. General Motors Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 12299 (9th Cir. June 1, 2000) (unpublished)-This court found that three former employees of GM failed to make an ERISA § 510 claim, since they were unable to show that the company offered a "pretextual" reason for implementing an "accept, quit or retire" policy before a sale of a division of the company. See detailed analysis.
Radici v. Associated Insurance Companies, 217 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2000)-This court reversed the district court's holding that the federal Public Health Services Act ("PHSA") pre-empted Radici's state law claims of unlawful termination of health insurance coverage (resulting in Michelle Radici's death). See detailed analysis.
Boggs v. Rio Grande Industries, Inc. Long-Term Disability Plan, 216 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2000)-This court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Bogg’s claim for total disability benefits. See detailed analysis.
Bronk v. Mountain States Telephone And Telegraph, Inc. d/b/a/ U.S. West Communications, 216 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2000)-This court upheld the district court's summary judgment against a group of leased employees who sought benefits under the welfare and pension plans which their employer provided for "regular" employees. See detailed analysis.
Moore v. American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists, 216 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2000)-The court addressed the question of whether plan beneficiaries have standing to sue derivatively on behalf of a plan against employers for unpaid fund contributions—particularly where the beneficiaries allege that the plan trustees have breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to sue the employers. This court held that they do not. See detailed analysis.
LTV Steel Co., Inc. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1275 (Fed Cir. 2000)-In this case, LTV Steel contested the application of FICA and FUTA taxes to payments it made under nonqualified plans. This court reversed the judgment in favor of LTV, pointing out that the trial court misapplied the "origin of the claim doctrine." See detailed analysis.
