812 F.3d 521
6th Cir.2016Background
- Rubber Associates, an Ohio company, contributed to the Fund under CBAs with the Union since 1973, with Union and Fund trustees intertwined in governance.
- Union disclaimed representation of Rubber Associates’ employees, creating a union-mandated withdrawal that triggered the Fund’s withdrawal liability of $1,713,169 under MPPAA/ERISA.
- Arbitrator awarded the Fund the full withdrawal liability; Rubber Associates sought equitable relief to apply the direct attribution method resulting in $312,000 liability.
- District court dismissed Rubber Associates’ counterclaim, holding no federal common-law equitable remedy exists for union-mandated withdrawals.
- Rubber Associates appealed, arguing ERISA silence and federal common-law authority authorize the direct attribution remedy.
- The court reviews de novo the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, considering whether the counterclaim plausibly states a claim under any viable legal theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rubber’s equitable-relief counterclaim states a viable ERISA claim | Rubber asserts ERISA silence allows a direct-attribution remedy. | Fund contends ERISA provides four statutory methods and prohibits such equitable relief. | No viable equitable-relief claim; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether ERISA is silent/ambiguous about union-mandated withdrawals so as to permit federal common law | ERISA silent on union-mandated withdrawals justifies creating common law relief. | ERISA is comprehensive; no silent gap justifying new common-law remedies. | ERISA not silent or ambiguous; no federal common-law remedy created. |
| Whether a gap/awkwardness in ERISA’s scheme justifies relief for union-mandated withdrawals | Union-mandated withdrawals create systemic imbalance needing equitable relief. | No gap; text defines withdrawal liability and remedies are within statutory methods. | No gap warranting equitable relief; no transformation of liability scheme recognized. |
| Whether the direct attribution method should govern Rubber’s withdrawal liability | PBGC Report suggested direct attribution as a possible remedy for union-mandated withdrawals. | PBGC Report is not law; ERISA’s statutory methods control, unchanged by union-mandated context. | Not adopted; presumptive method stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiGeronimo Aggregates, LLC v. Zemla, 763 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2014) (ERISA’s federal common-law creation limited to select contexts)
- Whitworth Bros. Storage Co. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 794 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1986) (recognizes limited federal common-law remedies under ERISA)
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. 2004) (statutory standing not equal to substantive rights)
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1985) (ERISA enforcement scheme crafted with care; not to be tampered with)
- Tinsley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2000) (ERISA-related remedies limited to established channels)
- Local 6-0682 Int’l Union of Paper, Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers v. Nat’l Indus. Grp. Pension Plan, 342 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2003) (limits on creating new federal common-law rights under ERISA)
- Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc. v. Western Pennsylvania Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund, 847 F.2d 113 (3d Cir. 1988) (collusion/self-dealing theory not controlling where not proven)
- Findlay Truck Line, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 726 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2013) (PBGC/ERISA guidance on union-mandated withdrawals considered)
- Milwaukee Brewery Workers’ Pension Plan v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 513 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1995) (ERISA purposes to protect beneficiaries; limits on relief)