National Labor Relations Board v. HH3 Trucking, Inc., 755 F.3d 468

NLRB found HH3 Trucking committed unfair labor practices and ordered back pay; HH3 failed to comply and the Board sought enforcement.
The court enforced the Board’s orders; it then held Gretchen and William Hudson in civil contempt after finding they would not comply, appointing a special master who recommended at least $600 per month in payments.
Subsequently, after custody efforts and hearings, Judge Kim concluded the Hudsons could pay only about $100 per month given living expenses; the Hudsons later began receiving Social Security benefits.
The Board sought to require in-personam payment rather than garnishment of pension funds; the Hudsons argued ERISA §206(d)(1) prohibits attaching pension benefits and that Social Security cannot be garnished.
The court ultimately held that §206(d)(1) does not bar assessment of the Hudsons’ ability to pay from pension-derived funds after distribution and that Social Security benefits may be considered when determining ability to pay; the Hudsons must pay at least $600 per month to purge contempt, with the threat of renewed custody for nonpayment.
The Hudsons are warned that continued noncompliance will lead to custody and renewed enforcement of the monetary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §206(d)(1) bars attachment after distribution or garnishment of pension funds.	Hudsons: §206(d)(1) protects pension funds from third-party claims.	Board: ERISA prohibits only assignment, not assessment of ability to pay using pension funds after distribution.	§206(d)(1) does not bar the court from considering pension funds in determining ability to pay.
Whether Social Security benefits can be used to determine debtor's ability to pay.	Hudsons: Social Security cannot be garnished and should not affect payment obligations.	Board: Social Security receipts can be considered when determining capacity to pay from other income.	Social Security benefits can be considered in evaluating ability to pay, though not garnishable.
Whether the Board may proceed with an in-personam judgment versus attachment or garnishment of the pension plan.	Board seeks in-personam judgment to enforce payment.	Hudsons: ERISA and anti-assignment rules limit remedies; avoid in-personam liability that would bind plan/bank.	The Board’s remedy does not require garnishment of the pension plan; in-personam judgment is permissible to assess ability to pay.

Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1990) (ERISA anti-assignment provision does not permit equitable modification of its scope)
Townsel v. DISH Network L.L.C., 668 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2012) (anti-assignment rule covers garnishment but not all debt collection methods; can consider other payment methods)
United States v. Eggen, 984 F.2d 848 (7th Cir. 1993) (Social Security non-garnishability but allowance to consider other income for payment)
Hoult v. Hoult, 373 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2004) (majority view that §206(d)(1) does not prohibit post-distribution garnishment)
Central States Pension Fund v. Howell, 227 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2000) (post-distribution remedies under ERISA contexts)
Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2000) (post-distribution pension fund remedies)
Robbins v. DeBuono, 218 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2000) (ERISA-related collection approaches after distribution)
Truckin g Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Colville, 16 F.3d 52 (3d Cir. 1994) (emphasizes post-distribution considerations in recovery)
United States v. Smith, 47 F.3d 681 (4th Cir. 1995) (discusses limits of pension fund protections)
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 131 S. Ct. 1101 (U.S. 2011) (illustrates statutory interpretation in tax context relevant to textual limits)