Bishop v. Osborn Transp., Inc., 87-7203
| Decision Date | 01 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-7203,87-7203 |
| Citation | 838 F.2d 1173 |
| Parties | Guy H. BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OSBORN TRANSPORTATION, INC., Benefit Administrators, Inc., Paul W. Skelton, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Myron K. Allenstein, Roy Moore, Gadsden, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
George P. Ford, Simmons, Ford & Brunson, Gadsden, Ala., Maibeth J. Porter, Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before HILL, FAY and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
This case presents the question whether an employer who purposely alters an employee's date of discharge in order to interfere with the employee's attainment of medical benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a protected health benefit plan, is liable for punitive damages under 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1132(a)(1)(B), 1132(a)(3)(B)(i), and 1140. The district court held ERISA does not provide for punitive damages; we affirm.
The district court found that the employer violated 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1140, which prohibits an employer from discriminating against a
beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan ... or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.... The provisions of section 1132 of this title shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.
Section 1132 of Title 29 provides the remedies for violations of section 1140. The remedial provision requiring interpretation in this case reads,
(a) ... A civil action may be brought--
* * *
(3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary ... (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations....
29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132 (emphasis added).
The employee (Bishop) contends that the "other equitable relief" language demonstrates Congress's intent that the courts have the discretion to award punitive damages in ERISA cases.
In dictum, the Supreme Court noted that section 1132 does not mention the recovery of extra-contractual damages. The Court reasoned that
the six carefully-integrated civil enforcement provisions found in section [1132] ... provide strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly. The assumption of inadvertent omission is rendered especially suspect upon close consideration of ERISA's interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme, which is in term part of a 'comprehensive and reticulated statute.'
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 146, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 3091-93, 87 L.Ed.2d 96, 106 (1985). Justice Brennan, however, in a concurrence, joined by three other justices, concluded that the statutory authorization of "other appropriate equitable relief" permits recovery of extra-contractual damages. Russell, 473 U.S. at 148-58, 105 S.Ct. at 3094-99, 87 L.Ed.2d at 107-13. This court has previously acknowledged that the Russell decision did not resolve the question of whether punitive damages may be recovered under section 1132(a). Howard v. Parisian, Inc., 807 F.2d 1560, 1565 (11th Cir.1987).
We agree with the Supreme Court's dictum in Russell. The six integrated civil enforcement provisions of section 1132(a) focus heavily on the beneficiary's right to enforce the terms of the plan and does not mention the recovery of extra-contractual damages. Congress's express inclusion of several specific remedies in the statute represents an implicit exclusion of remedies not listed. Moreover, the provision under which the employee seeks relief authorizes courts to grant "other appropriate equitable relief." Punitive damages are just that, damages, and are not ordinarily incorporated by the term "equitable relief." See Sokol v. Bernstein, 803 F.2d 532, 537-38 (9th Cir.1986). Therefore, nothing in the statutory language of section 1132(a) supports the employee's position that punitive damages are recoverable under section 1132(a).
The Supreme Court in Russell considered whether extra-contractual damages could be recovered under section 1109(a), dealing with breaches by a fiduciary to a retirement plan. In addition to authorizing damages, that statute also authorizes the court to award "other equitable or remedial relief." In analyzing this language, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Useden v. Acker
...Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985); Bishop v. Osborn Transportation, Inc., 838 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir.1988); Sommers Drug Stores Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan Enterprises, Inc., 793 F.2d 1456 rehearing deni......
-
Corcoran v. United HealthCare, Inc.
...91-1835); Novak v. Andersen Corp., 962 F.2d 757 (8th Cir.1992); Sokol v. Bernstein, 803 F.2d 532 (9th Cir.1986); Bishop v. Osborn Transp., Inc., 838 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 90, 102 L.Ed.2d 66 (1988).19 See J. Calamari & J. Perillo, The Law of Contracts §......
-
Clarke v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America
...Cross-Blue Shield, 868 F.2d 430 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 855, 110 S.Ct. 158, 107 L.Ed.2d 116 (1989); Bishop v. Osborn Transp., Inc., 838 F.2d 1173, 1174 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 90, 102 L.Ed.2d 66 (1988). Furthermore, ERISA remedies were intended to be e......
-
Jordan v. Reliable Life Ins. Co.
...this court in Amos commented on Belasco v. W.K.P. Wilson and Son, Inc., 833 F.2d 277 (11th Cir.1987), and on Bishop v. Osborn Transportation, Inc., 838 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir.1988), several things have transpired. First, there is now a pending petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in Bi......