WestRock RKT Company v. Pace Industry Union - Management Pension Fund
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8569
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pace Industry Union-Management Pension Fund is a multiemployer plan in "critical status," requiring a rehabilitation plan under ERISA §1085. The Board of Trustees (the plan sponsor) adopted a rehabilitation plan and later amended it to require withdrawing employers to pay a portion of the plan’s accumulated funding deficiency.
- WestRock, a long-time contributing employer, sued for declaratory relief challenging the Amendment as violating ERISA, invoking 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(10) and 1451(a).
- The district court dismissed WestRock’s complaint for failure to state a claim; WestRock appealed.
- Central statutory questions: whether §1132(a)(10)(B) permits employers to challenge the substance or procedure of rehabilitation-plan amendments under §1085, and whether §1451(a) authorizes suits challenging acts "under Subtitle E" (the withdrawal-liability provisions).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed dismissal, holding WestRock failed to plead a §1085 violation and that the Amendment was not an act under Subtitle E giving rise to a §1451(a) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1132(a)(10)(B) allows an employer to challenge a rehabilitation-plan amendment’s substance or procedure under §1085 | WestRock: §1132(a)(10)(B)’s "in accordance with §1085" language permits employers to challenge both procedural and substantive defects in adopting/updating rehabilitation plans | Board: §1132(a)(10)(B) is narrow—permits suits only for failures to follow §1085’s procedural requirements (e.g., required updates/filings), not for substantive challenges to plan measures | Court: did not decide broad/sweeping interpretive dispute because WestRock failed to allege any violation of §1085 (procedural or substantive); dismissal affirmed |
| Whether §1451(a) authorizes a suit challenging the Amendment as an act "under Subtitle E" (withdrawal-liability provisions) | WestRock: Subtitle E governs all liabilities a withdrawing employer may face; the Amendment imposes additional withdrawal-related liability, so §1451(a) permits suit | Board: The Amendment was adopted under Subtitle B (§1085) as a rehabilitation-plan measure, not an act under Subtitle E; §1451(a) therefore does not apply | Court: The Amendment was not an act under Subtitle E; WestRock’s implied preemption argument (that Subtitle E exclusively governs withdrawal charges) fails; §1451(a) does not provide a cause of action here |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Life Ins. v. Arnold, 809 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir.) (ERISA limits who may bring civil actions and what actions they may pursue)
- Dime Coal Co. v. Combs, 796 F.2d 394 (11th Cir.) (historical absence of employer causes of action under ERISA)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (U.S.) (ERISA enacted to protect plan participants and beneficiaries)
- Shotz v. City of Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir.) (statutory interpretation: differing language in adjacent provisions is significant)
- CBS Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.) (courts should not read into statutes prohibitions Congress omitted)
- Useden v. Acker, 947 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir.) (silence in ERISA is deliberate; courts should be circumspect in inferring rights)
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U.S. 77 (U.S.) (presumption against implying remedies when Congress enacted comprehensive scheme)
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (U.S.) (courts should be chary of reading unenumerated remedies into statutes)