Roberto Trujillo v. Landmark Media Enterprises
689 F. App'x 176
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Trujillo was hired as Director of Benefits and Safety and added as a signatory for Dominion’s and Landmark’s retirement plans administered by Vanguard.
- During 2015 audits he discovered failures to vest participants in the Landmark retirement plan and improper handling/segregation of employee contributions in the Dominion 401(k).
- Trujillo reported these findings to Landmark/Dominion fiduciaries (Blevins and Blake), submitted weekly reports, coordinated meetings, and worked with ERISA counsel while preparing Form 5500 filings.
- Management changed auditors, shifted audit control to finance, resisted Trujillo’s edits to management representation letters, nonetheless submitted Form 5500s with Trujillo’s signature; Trujillo was fired shortly thereafter.
- Trujillo sued alleging retaliation in violation of ERISA § 510 (29 U.S.C. § 1140) and state-law defamation; the district court dismissed the ERISA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to allege testimony or participation in an “inquiry or proceeding” and declined supplemental jurisdiction over defamation.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding the complaint survived Rule 12(b)(6) and remanded for factual development to resolve the scope of “inquiry or proceeding.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether providing information during mandatory audits and Form 5500 preparation qualifies as giving information in an "inquiry or proceeding" under ERISA § 510 | Trujillo: audits and Form 5500 work are legally required processes and thus constitute an "inquiry" protected by § 510 | Appellees: audits and Form 5500 preparation are not an "inquiry or proceeding" under § 510; complaint fails to allege testimony or participation in a formal proceeding | Reversed dismissal; complaint sufficiently pleads facts that warrant discovery and factual development to resolve whether the activities qualify as an "inquiry or proceeding" |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 337 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2003) (interprets "inquiry or proceeding" in § 510 as requiring at least something more formal than internal complaints)
- Wright v. North Carolina, 787 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2015) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal disfavored where novel legal theories require factual development)
- Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Props., Inc., 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain factual matter to state a plausible claim)