Virtue v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Retirement and Family Protection Plan, 997 F. Supp. 2d 10

Background

Daniel Virtue worked as an IBT local officer and as a part-time “stipend employee” for the IBT national office from Oct. 2000–Jan. 2007 and claims he worked 1,000+ hours in his first 12 months, which would have made him eligible for the IBT Retirement and Family Protection Plan before Amendment 2001‑C.
In 2001 the Plan adopted Amendment 2001‑C excluding stipend employees hired after April 1, 1999, from pension participation; previously coverage required 1,000 hours in 12 months.
IBT notified stipend employees in May 2002 (and again communicated to Virtue and his divorce attorney in April 2006) that stipend employees only received travel‑accident insurance and were ineligible for Plan benefits.
Virtue did not apply for benefits until 2009; the Plan denied his application and subsequent administrative appeals. Virtue filed suit in April 2012 asserting ERISA anti‑cutback and notice violations and seeking reformation and benefits.
The district court previously denied class certification because Virtue’s individual claim appeared time‑barred; defendants moved for summary judgment on statute‑of‑limitations grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Virtue’s ERISA claims are time‑barred	Virtue argues the claims were timely because he only sought benefits in 2009 and the Plan’s later consideration waived or tolled limitations	Defendants say the 2002 and especially the April 2006 communications clearly repudiated any benefit entitlement, starting the limitations period	Court held claims time‑barred; limitations began no later than April 2006 and expired by April 2009
Whether Virtue has standing as a Plan “participant”	Virtue contends he has a colorable claim (1,000+ hours) and thus may sue for benefits	Defendants contend he lacks a colorable claim and thus lacks participant status	Court found Virtue presented a colorable claim and had standing (but the claim fails on statute of limitations)
Whether Plan waived or is equitably tolled from asserting timeliness defense	Virtue argues Plan’s 2009–2010 review and appeals waived or tolled the defense	Defendants argue mere review/response does not waive the defense and equitable tolling is inapplicable because limitations had already run	Court held no waiver; equitable tolling inapplicable because Virtue did not diligently pursue remedies before limitations expired
Whether the Plan’s repudiation was sufficiently clear and consistent to start the accrual period	Virtue argues Plan did not give notice of the Amendment’s cutting back of vested rights and later processed appeals, so repudiation wasn’t clear/continuous	Defendants say the April 2006 letter plainly informed Virtue he was a stipend employee and not eligible, a clear repudiation	Court found the April 2006 letter was a clear repudiation triggering accrual; later administrative responses did not negate that clarity

Key Cases Cited

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1978) (ERISA suits for benefits are allowed only by a participant or beneficiary)
Connors v. Hallmark & Son Coal Co., 935 F.2d 336 (1991) (federal courts borrow state statute of limitations for ERISA non‑fiduciary claims)
Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 701 F.3d 718 (2012) (ERISA accrual when repudiation is clear and known to beneficiary)
Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 475 F.3d 516 (2007) (discovery rule and accrual in ERISA; non‑fiduciary claims accrue on repudiation)
Daill v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 73 Pension Fund, 100 F.3d 62 (1996) (plan letter denying inquiry can constitute clear repudiation)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (standards for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)