Joan Sherfel v. Reggie Newson
768 F.3d 561
6th Cir.2014Background
- Nationwide has an ERISA plan administering STD, LTD, and Your Time benefits; benefits are paid only if STD/LTD as defined by the plan.
- Wisconsin WFMLA requires six weeks unpaid leave for birth, with a substitution provision allowing substitution of other employer-provided leave.
- Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development investigated Gerum’s claim; ALJ ordered Nationwide to pay additional STD benefits contrary to the plan.
- Nationwide filed federal suit seeking declaration of ERISA preemption of the WFMLA substitution provision and an injunction.
- District court held the WFMLA as applied to require payment of STD contrary to the plan is preempted in multiple ways; appeal follows.
- Concurrently, a concurring opinion in Part and dissenting in Part discusses WFMLA substitution theory under state law and ERISA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WFMLA substitution preempts under ERISA expressly | Nationwide argues WFMLA forces plan payments contrary to plan terms | Wisconsin argues substitution is not ERISA-related and savings clauses apply | Yes; preempted expressely as applied |
| Whether WFMLA substitution is preempted by ERISA conflict-preemption | Nationwide contends conflict precludes state regulation of ERISA plan | Wisconsin argues no conflict with ERISA enforcement or uniform administration | Yes; implied preemption affirmed |
| Whether ERISA savings clause §1144(d) defeats preemption here | Nationwide asserts savings clause preserves state law issues | Wisconsin relies on legislative history and interpretations | No; savings clause does not save WFMLA substitution |
| Whether preemption affects Wisconsin’s administrative enforcement channel | Nationwide argues state enforcement via WFMLA process is improper | Wisconsin argues administrative remedies coexist | Preemption to extent of state process as alternative enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (uniform benefits law objective; ERISA preempts conflicting state laws)
- Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) (state law affecting plan administration is preempted)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruins, 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (preemption where state law interferes with national plan administration)
- Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) (ERISA’s exclusive civil-enforcement scheme)
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (congressional intent; impairment standard for preemption)
- Davila v. Aetna Health Inc., 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (ERISA preemption; exclusive enforcement remedy)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (conflict with state law not tolerated when it undermines federal objective)
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (legislative history cannot override statutory text)