Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Schieffer
648 F.3d 935
8th Cir.2011Background
- Schieffer became President and CEO of DM&E in 1996 and an Employment Agreement was signed in 2004 anticipating a control change.
- The Employment Agreement provided lucrative severance benefits if terminated without cause or for good reason.
- DM&E terminated Schieffer in October 2008 after regulatory merger approval was anticipated, triggering the severance provisions.
- Schieffer demanded arbitration; DM&E sought to enjoin arbitration as preempted by ERISA in federal court.
- The district court dismissed, applying Crews to hold the Agreement is not an ERISA plan.
- On appeal, the court agreed the contract could be non-ERISA but remanded to resolve jurisdictional issues about ERISA relate-to preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Employment Agreement an ERISA plan? | DM&E argues it is an ERISA welfare plan. | Schieffer contends it is not an ERISA plan because it concerns a single employee. | Not an ERISA plan |
| Does ERISA preemption apply due to relating provisions in the Agreement to other DM&E plans? | DM&E contends the relate-to provisions bring the dispute within ERISA preemption. | Schieffer argues no preemption as the contract is not an ERISA plan and relate-to questions require further jurisdictional analysis. | Remand for jurisdictional determination on relate-to preemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987) (preemption depends on ongoing administrative program for multi-employee plans)
- Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 21 F.3d 254 (8th Cir. 1994) (test for whether severance payments require an administrative scheme)
- Crews v. General American Life Insurance Co., 274 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2001) (applies factors for ERISA plan status in severance contexts)
- Emmenegger v. Bull Moose Tube Co., 197 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 1999) (top-hat plans and ERISA status considerations for single employees)
- Antolik v. Saks, Inc., 463 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (illustrates ERISA preemption scope in certain contexts)
- Johnson v. U.S. Bancorp, 387 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2004) (ERISA preemption and related questions in employment-benefit disputes)
- Gresham v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 404 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2005) (comparison on preemption implications in non-ERISA contexts)
- Eide v. Grey Fox Tech. Servs. Corp., 329 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (ERISA-related preemption and plan-status considerations)
- Crews v. General American Life Insurance Co., 274 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2001) (see above (duplicate entry reiterated for emphasis))