818 F. Supp. 2d 1075
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Hakim sues Accenture entities alleging ERISA violations related to pension benefits.
- Court previously granted partial summary judgment; Count IV (ERISA §204(h)) survived due to anti-alienation provision.
- Seventh Circuit Howell v. Motorola (2011) held a similar release can bar claims for additional ERISA benefits but not entitlements in the plan.
- Defendants moved for reconsideration after Howell’s decision.
- Court granted reconsideration, concluding Howell controls and the release bars Hakim’s remaining 204(h) claim.
- Hakim had signed a broad release in 2003 waiving claims up to that date, while an initial benefit statement in 2000 indicated ineligibility to participate in the Retirement Plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howell applies to this case. | Hakim argues Howell does not apply (different plan type; anti-alienation intact; accrual timing). | Howell applies, rendering additional-benefits claims barred by the release. | Howell applies; contested claim barred; anti-alienation not controlling. |
| Whether the plan type (defined benefit vs defined contribution) affects Howell's applicability. | Plaintiff asserts Howell only governs defined contribution plans. | Howell controls regardless of plan type. | Plan type distinction is immaterial; Howell applies equally. |
| Whether ERISA's anti-alienation provision preserves Hakim's §204(h) claim. | Anti-alienation protects pension entitlements and thus preserves the claim. | Howell shows the release can bar such claims as to additional benefits. | Anti-alienation does not preserve the contested claim; release controls. |
| When Hakim's §204(h) claim accrued and whether constructive notice bars it. | Claim accrues upon denial; release should not bar pre-denial accrual. | Accrual occurred earlier; Hakim had notice before signing the release. | Claim accrued no later than 2000; notice before signing; claim barred by release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Motorola, Inc., 633 F.3d 552 (7th Cir.2011) (release bars claims for additional benefits but not entitlements at signing)
- Lynn v. CSX Transp., 84 F.3d 970 (7th Cir.1996) (anti-alienation protects pension entitlements; contested claims outside scope)
- Romero v. Allstate Corp., 404 F.3d 212 (3d Cir.2005) (204(h) claims accrue upon repudiation by plan amendment)
- In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585 (3d Cir.2009) (defined contribution vs defined benefit immaterial for 204(h) releases)