Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, employees at a defense plant in Arizona, collectively bargained for the right to receive employer-provided healthcare coverage after they retired. At issue was whether those employees, now retirees, were contractually entitled to receive premium-free healthcare coverage until age 65, or whether the contracts on which the retirees relied as providing that entitlement allowed their prior employer to start charging them for their insurance. The court held that Raytheon expressly agreed to provide 100% company-paid healthcare coverage for eligible retirees; that Raytheon's obligation survived the expectation of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs); and that Raytheon's agreed-upon obligation could not be unilaterally abrogated by Raytheon, regardless of the rights Raytheon reserved for itself in Plan documents, because the CBAs did not incorporate the Plans' reservation-of-rights provisions with respect to employer contribution issues, as opposed to issues relating to the provision of monetary or in kind benefits for particular medical services. The court further held that the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs' claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.

The collective bargaining agreement was scheduled to expire. During negotiations, the union disclaimed representation of the company's employees and terminated the collective bargaining process. The company then withdrew from the multiemployer pension plan. The pension fund imposed withdrawal liability and assessed $57,291.50, 29 U.S.C. 1399. The company demanded indemnification from the union pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, which stated: "The Union shall indemnify the Company for any contingent liability which may be imposed under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980." The district court concluded that an arbitration provision was enforceable. The arbitrator ordered the union to pay. The district court upheld the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that it would violate public policy for a union to indemnify an employer for any contingent liability to a pension plan established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461.

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, to recover benefits under long-term disability benefit plans maintained by their former employers. The plans provide for reduction of benefits if the disabled employee also receives benefits under the Social Security Act, as both plaintiffs do. They dispute calculation of the reduction, claiming that the plans do not authorize inclusion in the offset of benefits paid to dependent children. Both plans require offsets for "loss of time disability" benefits. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that children's Social Security disability benefits paid based on a parent's disability are "loss of time disability" benefits under the language of the plans.

The employer sought an early withdrawal from its obligation to make pension contributions to a multiemployer pension fund; it entered into a new collective bargaining agreement, six weeks before expiration of the existing agreement, that abrogated its obligation to make payments to the fund. The fund sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1145. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the fund. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the agreement was ambiguous in providing that the employer could not “prospectively” change its obligation.

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned whether Section 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), preempted the breach of contract claim asserted by Appellees Lawrence J. Barnett, Christine Cookenback, James M. Defeo, and Madlin Laurent against Appellant SKF USA, Inc. under Pennsylvania law. Appellees were salaried, non-unionized, employees of SKF, working in its Philadelphia plant. The Company also employed hourly unionized employees at the plant. In 1991, SKF announced its decision to shut down the plant and terminate all workers. Over the course of the next year, the effect of the closing on employee retirement rights and benefits became a matter of discussion between Appellees and their supervisors. Appellees' retirement and pension rights were set forth in the an ERISA plan which SKF maintained and administered. Appellees became aware that, as a result of collectively bargaining the effects of plant closing, SKF agreed that any union worker with 20 years of service and 45 years of age, as of March 10, 1993, the date on which the collective bargaining agreement then in effect expired, would be entitled to receive an immediate and full pension (the creep provision). Two years after their employment with SKF was terminated, and prior to the submission of pension applications, Appellees commenced a breach of contract action against SKF alleging that throughout the course of their employment with the Company, they were employed under the same or better terms and conditions, including "pension eligibility," as SKF’s union workers. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that Appellees' claim was preempted, and accordingly reversed the Superior Court's order that affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of SKF.

In this case, the district court found that plaintiff's claims against defendant were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., because they arose under defendant's Pension Plan (Plan) and not separately and independently out of plaintiff's written employment agreement (Agreement). On appeal, plaintiff argued that the additional benefits he sought were based on a promise separate and independent from the Plan. The court held that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA where the Agreement merely described the benefits plaintiff would receive as a Plan member and it made no promises of benefits separate and independent from the benefits under the Plan. The suit was properly removed to federal court, the district court had federal jurisdiction over the case, and remand to state court was not warranted. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for failure to state a plausible claim. Finally, the court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This appeal required the court to determine what effect, if any, a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement had on the acquiring company's retiree benefits plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. The court held that the provision constituted a valid plan amendment. Moreover, the court held that the provision was assumed, not rejected, in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

In attempting to enroll his infant daughter, a covered employee failed to complete parts of the form indicating whether the child resided with employee, was dependent upon employee for more than 50 percent support and maintenance, and whether the child qualified to be claimed as a tax exemption on employee's federal tax return. The plan made several inquiries before sending a notice that coverage was denied. The employee did not appeal. The plan sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act , 29 U.S.C. 1001, to recover $472,357.84 paid to the medical college and $1,199,538.58 paid to the hospital on behalf of the child. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ERISA claim. The plan reserves the right to recover against "covered persons" if it has paid them or any other party on their behalf. Neither the treating entities nor the child are covered persons. Because the plan is not implicated, state law claims were not preempted; the court reversed dismissal of those claims. Plaintiffs' position was not unreasonable; the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees.

Defendant entered into an Employment Agreement with his employer before the employer entered into a merger. After defendant was terminated by his employer and post-merger disputes arose as to the amounts his employer owed him, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement's arbitration provision. The employer commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration as preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The employer alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the severance dispute "arises out of an [ERISA] employee benefit plan" and therefore state law claims were preempted, and supplemental jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1367 over non-ERISA claims. The court considered ERISA's statutory language, purpose, and historical context and held that an individual contract providing severance benefits to a single executive employee was not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 1002(1). The court also held that ERISA preempted state laws that "relate to" an employee benefit plan. Consequently, further questions arose because the Employment Agreement included two provisions that could "relate" to the Employment Agreement to other programs of the employer that were ERISA plans. As neither parties nor the district court considered this jurisdictional issue, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Kurt R. Ward, Attorney at Law, LLC, appealed the district court's order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Plan Parties' (the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, the Retirement Board of the Plan, and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation) cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both parties' motions sought a declaration about whether the Plan Parties had to pay the disability benefits of two of the Ward Firm's retired NFL player clients into the firm's client trust account pursuant to state court jurisdiction for unpaid attorney's fees despite a provision in the Plan prohibiting any "benefit under the Plan" from being assigned or reached by creditors through legal process. The court held that its prior panel precedent held that bargained-for provisions barring assignments in ERISA welfare benefits were valid and enforceable and that the Ward Firm had not directed the court's attention to any such intervening en banc or Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and held that the district court did not err in declaring that the spendthrift provision in the Plan prevented the Plan Parties from depositing the disability benefits owned by two retired NFL players into the Ward Firm's trust account.