323 F. Supp. 3d 523
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Robert Stolarik, a longtime photographer who worked extensively for The New York Times, sued the Times, an editor, and two pension plans alleging misclassification as an independent contractor, unpaid wages/benefits (including NYLL claims and unjust enrichment), discrimination, and an ERISA benefits denial.
- Stolarik signed a 2004 Freelance Agreement stating he was an independent contractor and would receive 1099s and no employee benefits; he claims that from 2004–2012 he worked full‑time, under Times direction, and performed the same work as staff photographers.
- Plaintiff asserted (inter alia) an NYLL Article 6 unlawful wage‑deduction claim and an unjust enrichment claim based on entitlement to CBA staff salaries/benefits, and an ERISA §502(a)(1)(B) claim seeking pension benefits from the Guild Plan and APP Plan.
- The Times moved to dismiss the NYLL and unjust enrichment claims as preempted by LMRA §301 and for failure to exhaust the CBA grievance/arbitration process. The Plan Trustees moved to dismiss the ERISA claim as time‑barred and, alternatively, that the denial was not arbitrary and capricious.
- The Court (1) held the NYLL wage‑deduction and unjust enrichment claims are preempted by §301 and dismissed them without prejudice for failure to exhaust CBA remedies; and (2) converted the Plans’ motion into a summary‑judgment review of the administrative record and granted judgment for the Plans: the Guild Plan claim was time‑barred; the APP Plan denial was reasonable under the arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYLL Article 6 unlawful wage‑deduction claim is preempted by LMRA §301 | Stolarik says Times unlawfully paid him as a freelancer and thus NYLL claim stands | Times says the claim seeks to enforce rights created by the CBA and is §301‑preempted | Preempted; claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust CBA remedies |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim is preempted by LMRA §301 | Stolarik contends quasi‑contract/unjust enrichment independent of the CBA | Times contends the claim depends on rights under the CBA (wages/benefits) so §301 applies | Preempted; claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust CBA remedies |
| Whether ERISA benefit claim against Guild Plan is time‑barred | Stolarik argued repudiation did not occur until he obtained plan documents in 2016 | Plans point to 2004 Freelance Agreement as clear repudiation starting the 6‑year limitations period | Guild Plan claim time‑barred: accrual on 2004 agreement; claim barred |
| Whether Trustees’ denial of APP Plan benefits was arbitrary and capricious | Stolarik argued he met "employee" status (common‑law Darden factors) and trustees lacked substantial evidence | Trustees relied on freelance agreement, work practices, and evidence showing independent‑contractor status; Plan grants trustees discretionary authority | APP Plan denial upheld: trustees’ interpretation reasonable and supported by substantial evidence; summary judgment for Plans |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) (ERISA review standard: de novo unless plan grants discretionary authority)
- Allis‑Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (§301 preemption of state law claims dependent on CBA)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (state law claims preempted if they are substantially dependent on analysis of CBA)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) (common‑law test for employee status under ERISA context)
- Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussion of §301 preemption and federal common law for labor contracts)