Silverman v. Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated Health & Insurance Fund
761 F.3d 277
2d Cir.2014Background
- UMM Fund and 210 Fund are ERISA-governed health plans funded by CBAs with Teamsters Local 210.
- CBAs direct employers to contribute to the Allied Fund (now the 210 Fund), with a portion unconditionally and irrevocably allocated to the UMM Fund for retirees.
- In 2006, CBAs were amended to reduce remittances to the UMM Fund from $8 to $0.10 per employee per week, without UMMF consent.
- UMM Fund sued for accounting, remittance of owed funds, and ERISA § 515 violation; district court dismissed § 515 claim but granted summary judgment on the ERISA plan-terms claims.
- District court held the CBAs themselves established ERISA plans, allowing ERISA § 502(a)(3)(B) relief for the first two claims; on appeal, court vacated and remanded as state-law contract claims.
- This court affirms dismissal of § 515 claim, vacates the summary-judgment award on the first two claims, and remands for possible supplemental jurisdiction over those claims as contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 515 liability lay with the 210 Fund | UMM Fund contends 210 Fund acted in employers' interest. | 210 Fund was not an employer nor acting in an employer's interest; no agency/ownership or direct assumption. | Yes, § 515 claim properly dismissed |
| Whether CBAs 'established' ERISA plans or merely referenced plan terms | CBAs coupled with fund indentures created plan terms enforceable under ERISA § 502(a)(3)(B). | CBAs do not make the CBAs themselves ERISA plan terms; plan terms are in the trust documents/SPD. | CBAs do not themselves establish ERISA plan terms; ERISA claims failed but state-law claims possible |
| Whether the district court correctly held jurisdiction over ERISA § 502(a)(3)(B) claims | District court had jurisdiction as these were plan-term enforcement claims. | Plan terms not established by CBAs; jurisdiction improper for ERISA claims. | Subject matter jurisdiction affirmed for ERISA claims but remanded for state-law treatment |
| Whether the first two claims should be treated as state-law contract claims subject to supplemental jurisdiction | Claims plead as contract-based relief; ERISA grounds insufficient. | Claims framed as ERISA plan-term violations; better analyzed under ERISA. | Vacate summary judgment on first two claims and remand for possible supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561 (2d Cir. 1995) (employer status for § 515 requires agency/ownership or direct assumption)
- Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Lotto, 35 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994) (control/assumption tests for employer status under § 515)
- Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 472 U.S. 559 (Supreme Court 1985) (binding standard for employer obligations under ERISA plan terms)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court 1995) (ERISA plan documents must be in written form; plan terms access)
- Pettaway v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 644 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (identifies plan terms via SPD and governing documents)