History
  • No items yet
midpage
869 N.W.2d 295
Minn.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Thomas Engfer was laid off from General Dynamics and enrolled in the employer’s SUB (supplemental unemployment benefit) plan that paid supplemental amounts designed to make total payments equal his pre-termination weekly pay.
  • The SUB plan required recipients to apply for state unemployment benefits and to confirm ongoing eligibility; it also paid in some weeks when state benefits were not yet payable (e.g., the 1-week waiting period).
  • Engfer received state benefits and $31,398 in SUB payments; DEED later concluded the SUB payments were "wages" under Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 29(a)(13) because the plan paid in weeks when state benefits were not paid, and DEED sought recoupment of overpaid state benefits.
  • A ULJ and DEED held Engfer had been overpaid; the court of appeals reversed, holding ERISA preempted Minnesota’s timing requirement that SUB plans pay only in weeks the employee received state unemployment benefits.
  • The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether ERISA preempts the state timing provision and whether the General Dynamics SUB plan is exempt from ERISA under 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(3).

Issues

Issue Engfer’s Argument DEED’s Argument Held
Whether Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 29(a)(13) (timing provision) is preempted by ERISA § 514 (29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)) The timing provision “relates to” an ERISA plan and is therefore preempted, so SUB payments are not wages The timing provision simply defines what counts as “wages” for state unemployment and does not relate to plan administration, so it is not preempted Held preempted: the timing provision has a connection with ERISA plans because it affects substantive coverage and administration and would force plan choices/uniformity burdens on administrators
Whether the General Dynamics SUB plan is an ERISA-covered “employee benefit plan” Plan is covered by ERISA as an employee welfare benefit plan providing supplemental unemployment benefits DEED conceded plan is an ERISA plan but alternatively argued the plan is exempt under §1003(b)(3) Held covered: plan qualifies as an ERISA employee benefit plan under §1003(a)
Whether the SUB plan is exempt from ERISA under 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(3) (maintained solely to comply with unemployment laws) Engfer argued plan or exemption issues were not properly before court; otherwise argued plan not exempt DEED argued plan is maintained solely to comply with unemployment laws (thus exempt) Held not exempt: §1003(b)(3) requires a plan to be maintained solely to provide only statutorily required benefits; General Dynamics’ SUB plan provides additional supplemental benefits and thus is not exempt
Net result for Engfer’s overpayment claim ERISA preemption means SUB payments are not state “wages,” so Engfer was not overpaid DEED maintained state law controls and recoupment valid Held for Engfer: ERISA preempts the timing requirement, SUB payments are not wages for state eligibility purposes, so no overpayment recovery by DEED

Key Cases Cited

  • Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (explains §1003(b)(3) exemption and that a plan must provide only statutorily required benefits to be exempt)
  • Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (describes ERISA preemption clause as deliberately broad)
  • Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504 (1981) (discusses survival of state laws that do not relate to ERISA plans and §1144 preemption framework)
  • N.Y. State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (ERISA preemption inquiry: state law that has a connection with or reference to an ERISA plan is preempted)
  • Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) (state law preempted where it bound plan administrators to particular rules for benefit payments; core ERISA concern)
  • Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) (useful for assessing whether a state law merely alters incentives or actually dictates choices of ERISA plans)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Thomas v. Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Sep 9, 2015
Citations: 869 N.W.2d 295; 60 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2516; 2015 Minn. LEXIS 503; A13-872
Docket Number: A13-872
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
Log In