Anderson v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

• Decision Date: 24 January 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1606,93-1606
• Parties: , 17 Employee Benefits Cas. 2113 George Raymond ANDERSON, a/k/a Andy Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1311

11 F.3d 1311

62 USLW 2532, 17 Employee Benefits Cas. 2113

George Raymond ANDERSON, a/k/a Andy Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1606

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 24, 1994.

Cheryl P. Hunter, Sam Hammons, Jon W. Laasch, Hammons & Hunter, Oklahoma City, OK, for plaintiff-appellant.

Phillip N. Smith, Jr., Michael Andrew Piazza, Jeffrey A. Carter, McKool & Smith, P.C., Dallas, TX, for defendants-appellees Electronic Data Systems Corp., Weynand, Shlakman and Johnson.

Patrick Shaw, John R. Woodward, Woodward & Shaw, Dallas, TX, for defendant-appellee Crow.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

George Anderson brought this suit in state court against his former employer, Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS), and others. He asserted state common law causes of action for wrongful discharge, tortious interference with prospective business and contractual relationships, and infliction of emotional distress. The defendants removed the case to federal court and were either voluntarily dismissed or obtained summary judgments. On appeal, Anderson does not directly challenge the summary judgments, but instead asks us to vacate the judgments and direct the remand of the case to state court, on grounds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction by virtue of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001-1461, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Anderson's suit was originally filed in Texas state court against EDS and four present or former EDS employees. His state court petition asserted numerous facts and claims on which our analysis of jurisdiction rests. Regarding the general nature of his employment with EDS, the petition alleges:

On October 15, 1984, Anderson was employed by Defendant EDS for a managerial position in the Domestic Treasury Department of Defendant EDS. From October 1984 to October 1985, Anderson served as the Cash Manager in the Domestic Treasury Department, where his responsibilities included management of all cash operations, short term investments, cash forecasting, and related information systems plus consulting with various groups within the EDS system. In October of 1985, Plaintiff was promoted to [the] position of Manager of Investments and Debt in the Domestic Treasury Department. In that position, Plaintiff had responsibilities for all domestic short and long-term investments for all pension portfolios, corporate portfolios, and Title IX portfolios. In this position, Plaintiff was charged with the responsibility of administering investment assets totaling approximately 1.3 billion dollars.

The petition alleges that Anderson was demoted and discharged for his refusal to commit illegal acts and for reporting the activities of another employee, Douglas Crow. It asserts that Anderson was asked by Crow to commit certain illegal acts, and gives four examples. Two of the examples involved the EDS pension plans. Anderson claimed that the illegal acts included:

Being asked to sign on two separate occasions approval or payment invoices on behalf of the pension portfolios under his management and supervision who [sic] had been retained by Crow without approval of the pension trustees. Such action would have been a violation of the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("Erisa") Laws governing management of such pension plans.

* * * * * *

Plaintiff was also asked to write up minutes for meetings which he did not attend in connection with the EDS Retirement Plan. This also is in violation of ERISA.

The petition alleges that Anderson refused to commit these acts, and reported these incidents and other improper conduct by Crow to management. It further alleges that Anderson was demoted and then discharged because of his "refusal to commit illegal activities at Crow's request and because of his reporting Crow's own illegal or irregular activities to EDS Management." The petition asserted a cause of action for wrongful discharge, on the theory that under Texas law employment-at-will contracts cannot be terminated because of the employee's refusal to commit an illegal act. See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.1985).

The defendants removed the case to federal court. Anderson filed an amended complaint deleting all references to ERISA. Defendant Crow filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. Anderson moved to remand the case to state court in conjunction with filing his response to Crow's summary judgment motion. Anderson later dismissed all other defendants except EDS, and dismissed all claims except for the wrongful discharge claim. The district court denied the motion to remand and granted summary judgment as to the remaining claim.

On appeal Anderson does not challenge the summary judgments on the merits. Instead, he claims that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and asks that we vacate the summary judgments entered by the district court and direct the remand of the case to state court.

DISCUSSION

The state court petition did not allege any federal causes of action. EDS claims that the case was properly removed by virtue of the federal preemption afforded by ERISA. We are hardly writing on a clean slate, as the subject of federal preemption under ERISA has generated a wealth of jurisprudence. We face two related questions. The first is whether the claims asserted by Anderson are preempted by ERISA. The second is whether ERISA's "total preemption" doctrine applies to create federal question jurisdiction which will support removal of the case to federal court.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990), provides guidance to our case. There, an employee brought a state court action against his employer alleging wrongful discharge. The employee claimed that one of the reasons for his discharge was the employer's desire to avoid making contributions to his pension plan, which allegedly would have vested in another four months. The case eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court, which held that a plaintiff could recover in a wrongful discharge action if he established that the principal reason for his termination was the employer's desire to avoid contributing to its pension plan. Id., 498 U.S. at 135-36, 111 S.Ct. at 481. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that such a cause of action was preempted by ERISA's broad preemption provision, ERISA Sec. 514, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144, which preempts state laws which "relate to" an ERISA benefit plan. The Court reaffirmed its prior decisions noting that the preemption provision is "deliberately expansive" and "designed to 'establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern,' " and that a law relates to an ERISA plan "if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan." 498 U.S. at 139, 111 S.Ct. at 482-83 (citations omitted). The Court found that the wrongful discharge claim related to an ERISA plan and was hence preempted since "the existence of a pension plan is a critical factor in establishing liability under that State's wrongful discharge law." Id., 498 U.S. at 140, 111 S.Ct. at 483. As a further ground for finding preemption, the Court found that the state wrongful discharge cause of action would conflict with the express and carefully crafted enforcement provisions found in the ERISA statute, specifically Secs. 510 and 502(a)(3), (e), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1140, 1132(a)(3), (e). In describing the significance of Sec. 502(a), the Court turned to one of its prior decisions, which had explained:

[T]he detailed provisions of Sec. 502(a) set forth a comprehensive civil enforcement scheme that represents a careful balancing of the need for prompt and fair claims settlement procedures against the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans. The policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA.

McClendon, 498 U.S. at 144, 111 S.Ct. at 485 (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 54, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1556, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987)).

McClendon compels us to conclude that Anderson's wrongful discharge claim is preempted insofar as it is based on his refusal to carry out violations of ERISA, and reporting such violations to management. As in McClendon, such a claim depends on the existence of a pension plan, and therefore relates to an ERISA plan. Further, such a claim conflicts with the detailed and carefully balanced remedy provisions of ERISA. Section 502(a) provides remedies for participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries of ERISA plans. Anderson was both a participant and, given the allegations in his petition regarding his management of pension portfolios, a fiduciary. ¹ In addition, as in McClendon, Anderson's "claim falls squarely within the ambit of ERISA Sec. 510." 498 U.S. at 142, 111 S.Ct. at 485. Section 510 addresses discharges for exercising ERISA rights or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of ERISA rights, as well as discharges for providing information or testimony relating to ERISA. ²

Hence, we conclude that a state wrongful discharge cause of action based on a refusal to commit violations of ERISA and reporting such violations to management is preempted by ERISA, because such a claim relates to an ERISA plan and is expressly preempted by ERISA Sec. 514, and because the cause of action would conflict with the enforcement provisions of Secs. 502(a) a...