Eldredge v. Asarco Inc.
2011 MT 80
Mont.2011Background
- Eldredge worked 28 years at Asarco's East Helena plant and was notified of termination on Dec 31, 2001.
- In March 2001 Asarco offered Eldredge a substantially similar metals-accounting posting in Tucson, Arizona, with relocation benefits.
- Eldredge refused the Arizona offer in April 2001 and remained at East Helena through 2001 under employment or consulting arrangements.
- From Jan 1, 2002, to Sept 13, 2002, Eldredge worked under a consulting agreement, earning a salary comparable to prior earnings and receiving severance starting Jan 2002.
- The 70/80 retirement benefit provides accelerated pension for involuntarily terminated employees, but excludes eligibility if a comparable position is offered; the plan's version and the exclusion clause are central to the dispute.
- Eldredge contends the 1999 plan edition (with exclusion) was not provided; the district court found he forfeited eligibility due to rejecting the comparable-position offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Eldredge eligible for the 70/80 benefit after rejecting the Arizona offer? | Eldredge lacked knowledge of the exclusion and Arizona offer timing; the exclusion clause should not bar his benefits. | Eldredge waived eligibility by refusing a comparable position under an adverse-economic-condition scenario. | Eldredge is not barred by the exclusion; Arizona offer timing relative to elimination matters eliminates the exclusion’s applicability. |
| Did Asarco provide or make available plan copies showing the exclusion clause? | Eldredge did not receive newer editions showing the exclusion; Asarco failed to furnish updated plan information. | Asarco provided some plan information; Eldredge could access plan materials; the issue hinges on access. | The court did not need to decide this where the Arizona offer timing precludes the exclusion; no need to address evidence about copies. |
| Should Eldredge's 2002 consulting-work be treated as employment for credit toward the 70/80 benefit? | Consulting agreement preserved employee-like duties and supervision, suggesting employee status; credit should accrue. | Status may be independent-contractor; Mongtomian law governs; the district court rejected the issue on other grounds. | Under Montana law, Eldredge’s 2002 work is employment for purposes of 70/80 time credit. |
| Should penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) have been ruled on? | Penalties requested for failure to provide plan documents. | Penalty claim not raised in district court; not pleaded; procedural defect. | Penalty claim not preserved; court correctly declined to rule on it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1992) (federal employee/independent contractor distinction under ERISA)
- Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. Health Plan, 546 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2008) (prudential exhaustion of internal plan remedies; exceptions when futile or no reasonable procedure)
- Steiger v. Brown, 336 Mont. 29, 152 P.3d 705 (Mont. 2007) (standard for reviewing district court factual findings; clearly erroneous)
- Am. Agrijusters Co. v. Mont. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 1999 MT 241, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782 (Mont. 1999) (control and employee vs. independent contractor factors; right of control test)
- Barnes v. Indep. Auto. Dealers Assn. of Cal. Health & Benefit Plan, 64 F.3d 1389 (9th Cir. 1995) (ambiguities in plan provisions construed against drafter)