Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc.
707 F.3d 173
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Kirkendall, a long-time Dresser-Rand employee, challenges post-sale pension calculations under ERISA.
- Dresser-Rand merged into Halliburton/Ingersoll structure; Halliburton then sold its interest to Ingersoll in 2000.
- Halliburton later informed employees that their termination date for pension purposes was March 2000, lowering benefits.
- In 2001–2002, plan changes affected eligibility for early retirement subsidies tied to that March 2000 date.
- Kirkendall pursued inquiries and written requests, receiving little to no substantive response prior to filing suit in May 2007.
- District Court dismissed for failure to exhaust and for lack of an alleged actual plan amendment; court found no viable declaratory relief independent claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA exhaustion was required for future-benefit redetermination | Kirkendall reasonably interpreted plan terms as not requiring exhaustion | Kirkendall should have used Article III claim procedures for benefits | Not required to exhaust; claim allowed to proceed |
| Whether Halliburton's actions constituted an improper § 204(g) amendment | Indefinite changes to eligibility and calculations amount to amendment | No actual or constructive amendment; mere miscalculation/facts not an amendment | Affirmed dismissal of § 204(g) claim; concern left open for potential constructive amendment upon discovery |
| Whether declaratory relief was viable independent of other claims | Declaratory relief necessary to clarify ongoing rights | Declaratory relief duplicative | Reinstated declaratory-relief claim on remand; no standalone right ruled here |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 316 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion excused when plan terms allow suit for future benefits without exhaustion)
- Gallegos v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 210 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2000) (exemption from exhaustion when plan terms are ambiguous)
- Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 989 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1993) (ERISA exhaustion purposes and administrative remedies)
- Paese v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 449 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 2006) (exhaustion and equitable defenses in ERISA context)
- Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (restricts § 204(g) to actual amendments; interpretive disputes not amendments)
- Richardson v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 112 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 1997) (§ 204(g) applies to actual amendments, not mere interpretations)