Duane Morris ERISA Class Action Review – 2024

defendant violated the ERISA by wrongly denying severance benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted the motion. Id. at *29. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant and was laid off on March 31, 2020. Id. at *8. The plaintiff accepted severance from the defendant and submitted a severance claim under the defendant ’ s severance plan. Id. at *6. The plan administrator denied the plaintiff ’ s claim on the grounds that the claim was untimely, she was offered comparable employment, and that the defendant was no longer an “Affiliate” of the plan. Id. at *22. The plaintiff alleged denial of benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with plan benefits rights under the ERISA. Id. at *11, 17, and 22. As to the denial of benefits claim, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant was an “Affiliate” of the plan at the time of her termination, as required by the plan, because the defendant was sold to another company. Id. at *20. The court granted the motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary claim because the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant violated its fiduciary duties by not paying her benefits. Id. at *29. The court determined that the defendant was obligated to apply the terms of the plan, which excluded her from benefits. Id. at *18. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s attainment of benefits claim because she failed to allege any prohibited employer conduct by the defendant that changed her employer-employee relationship in a discriminatory or wrongful way. Id. at *29. For these reasons, the court granted the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss. Finally, in Moyer, et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Co. , Case No. 23-CV-578 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2023), the plaintiffs, a group of GEICO Field Representatives (GFRs), filed a class action alleging that the defendant misclassified GFRs as independent contractors and thereby failed to provide them with access to retirement and life insurance benefits in violation of the ERISA. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted the motion. The court analyzed whether it could refer to the relevant plan documents when considering the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that it could do so as the documents were repeatedly referred to in the complaint. The court explained that in order to have statutory standing to bring a claim for benefits under the ERISA, the plaintiffs must be a plan participant or beneficiary. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims failed because they could not show that they were eligible for benefits under the language of the plans. Id . at 8. The court ruled that the plan's plain language stated that the plaintiffs provided services to the defendant under the GFR agreements, and the GFR agreements expressly provided that the plaintiffs were not eligible to participate in employee benefit plans. Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were not eligible for participation in the plans and, therefore, were not "participants" for purposes of the ERISA. Id . at 9. The plaintiffs argued that, because they were eligible for some benefits under the defendant’s Welfare Plan, they should be eligible for all benefits the defendants offered. The court found this argument contrary to the statutory language of the ERISA, which provides that a participant may bring a civil action "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan. " Id . For these reasons, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the bulk of the plaintiffs’ class claims under the ERISA. 7. Motions To Dismiss Based On Lack Of Standing Pursuant To Rule 12(b)(1) In 2023, defendants frequently sought dismissal of ERISA class actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) based on the named plaintiffs’ lack of standing. The basic requirement of standing that permits the representative plaintiffs to “asser[t] the rights of parties not before the court” under the ERISA is that plaintiff must first establish constitutional standing under Article III by establishing a redressable injury caused by the defendant. The plaintiff may then represent absent class members by alleging “a single practice by the defendant that injures both the plaintiff and a third party, although in different ways.” Jones v. DishNetwork Corp ., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52890, at *13 (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2023) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). The Supreme Court has distinguished the standing requirements for defined benefit plans from those for defined contribution plans. Davis, et al. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc ., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157048 (M.D.N.C. Sep 6, 2023) (citing Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A. , 140 S. Ct. 1615, 1622 (2020)). In Thole , the

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online