Strumsky v. Washington Post Company
922 F. Supp. 2d 96
D.D.C.2013Background
- Strumsky sued Washington Post in this court after VRIP enrollment deadline; he claimed oral acceptance before deadline and reliance on HR assurances.
- Court previously held VRIPP is an ERISA plan and that Strumsky’s common law claims are preempted by ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme; case dismissed with prejudice.
- Strumsky conceded ERISA claim after acknowledging his cited provision did not apply.
- Strumsky sought reconsideration, arguing the court should address his alternative ERISA-based recasting and leave to amend, but he did not timely move for leave to amend.
- Court discusses exhaustion requirement under ERISA and concludes it applies; proposed amended complaint would not state a plausible ERISA claim.
- Court denies reconsideration and reaffirms dismissal with prejudice, noting possible doctrinal shifts but finding no clear error or manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper. | Strumsky argues alternative ERISA theory could cure defects. | Post argues dismissal with prejudice was correct because amendment would be futile. | Not clear error; dismissal with prejudice upheld. |
| Whether the court should have addressed Strumsky’s alternative ERISA theories. | Strumsky contends the court failed to consider ERISA recasting. | Court properly declined to address unraised amendment theories. | Reconsideration not warranted. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required and properly handled. | Strumsky may argue exhaustion not required. | Exhaustion is required unless futile. | Exhaustion required; failure fatal to proposed amendment. |
| Whether the proposed ERISA-based amendment would state a plausible claim. | Amendment would recast claims under ERISA. | Proposed amendment is bare-bones and fails to state a claim. | Proposed amendment would fail even if exhausted. |
| Whether the VRIP was an ERISA plan and preemption should apply. | Strumsky might argue non-ERISA status or non-preemption. | VRIP properly analyzed as ERISA plan; claims preempted. | Court adhered to ERISA preemption ruling; did not revisit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend and dismissal with prejudice requires Firestone analysis when prejudice is at issue)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (dismissal with prejudice proper only when other facts could not cure the deficiency)
- Commc’ns Workers v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 40 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (well-established exhaustion requirement before ERISA actions)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (exhaustion court discretion does not negate statutory requirement)
- Davenport v. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 249 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2001) (ignorance of claim procedure does not negate exhaustion)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (concept of ‘adjudication on the merits’ and preclusive effect framework)