Gifford v. U.S. Postal Service, 3:96 CV 2508(GLG).
| Decision Date | 29 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:96 CV 2508(GLG).,3:96 CV 2508(GLG). |
| Citation | 6 F.Supp.2d 135 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Francis R. GIFFORD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. |
Thomas G. Moukawsher, Moukawsher & Walsh, LLC, Groton, CT, for Plaintiff.
Althea E. Seaborn, Bridgeport, CT, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Francis R. Gifford moves to remand this case to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") for the purpose of reviewing his request for retirement benefits. In response, defendant U.S. Postal Service ("Postal Service") moves to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). For the following reasons, we GRANT plaintiff's motion to remand (doc. # 12) and GRANT defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. # 11) without prejudice.
Plaintiff claims that after working for the Postal Service for about thirty years, he retired on August 2, 1992.1 According to plaintiff, on August 5, 1992 as part of a nationwide restructuring, the Postal Service announced that it was offering a voluntary separation package or early-out opportunity to eligible employees.2 Under this incentive program, eligible employees, who met certain age and service requirements, were offered early retirement in exchange for retirement benefits under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8336(d)(2) or 8414(b)(1)(B). See Pl.'s Mem., Ex. 1, at 1. The Postal Service asserts that the incentive program consisted of "a voluntary early out opportunity for eligible employees and a special lump sum payment equal to six months base pay." Def.'s Mem., at 2. It is unclear from the motion papers whether plaintiff could or would have elected to accept retirement benefits under Chapter 83 or Chapter 84 of Title 5 of the U.S.Code, so we address both claims. See discussion infra at 138 ().
In order to offer voluntary early retirement to eligible employees, the Postmaster General was required to obtain authority from OPM, which it requested in a letter dated July 31, 1992. According to the Postal Service, OPM approved the request on August 5, 1992 for retirements effective between August 17 and October 3, 1992. The Postal Service also stated that the Postmaster General announced in July 1992 that the Postal Service was considering an incentive program to induce eligible employees to retire. It further asserted that "[h]is comments were disseminated throughout the Postal Service." Pl.'s Mem., Ex. 3.
Plaintiff commenced this action on December 12, 1996 and raised claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (Count One), and state common law (Count Two). On the ERISA claim, plaintiff argues that the incentive program constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan, as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1), and that the Postal Service was a fiduciary with respect to this plan, as defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(21)(A) and 1102. Plaintiff asserts that he was misled into retiring before the early-out announcement by Postal Service officials who withheld from him information that the Postal Service was considering an early retirement incentive program. Based on defendant's misrepresentations, plaintiff contends that defendant violated its fiduciary duties pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1104. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) ordering defendant to allow plaintiff to participate in the early-out program.
Plaintiff now moves to remand this case to OPM for administrative review of his claim for retirement benefits under the early-out program. Both parties agree that if the early-out program is construed as a governmental plan, as defined under section 1002(32) of ERISA, this Court would not have jurisdiction under ERISA because ERISA does not apply to governmental plans. See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(1); see also Pl.'s Mem., at 2; Def.'s Mem., at 6. Moreover, if ERISA does not apply because the early-out program is considered a governmental plan, plaintiff contends that his relief lies with the administrative agency, OPM.
In support of his motion to remand, plaintiff asserts that he initially made a claim upon the Postal Service to participate in the early-out program. In a letter dated August 16, 1996, the Postal Service informed plaintiff's counsel that there was no "formal appeal process within the Postal Service regarding the lump sum opportunity...." Pl.'s Mem., Ex. 1, at 2. In this letter, the Postal Service also stated that "[i]ssues regarding Mr. Gifford's retirement fall within the authority of OPM." Id. Subsequently, plaintiff's counsel requested that the Postal Service issue a final decision denying plaintiff's claim for benefits so that he could proceed with an administrative review by OPM. Pl.'s Mem., Ex. 2. In response by a letter dated November 21, 1996, the Postal Service stated that the retirement incentive Pl.'s Mem., Ex. 3. The Postal Service further advised plaintiff that the Postal Service did not have a formal appeals process available for the review of plaintiff's claim. Finally, the Postal Service referred plaintiff to OPM for any questions relating to his retirement. Id.
Plaintiff urges this Court to follow a recent decision of Judge Squatrito of the District of Connecticut in Printz v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Civ. No. 3:97-172 (D.Conn. Mar. 11, 1998) (Document # 24), which approved, ratified, and adopted Magistrate Judge Smith's recommended ruling of February 18, 1998. In Printz, the court directed a plaintiff, who was seeking retirement benefits under a voluntary separation program offered by the FDIC similar to the one at issue in this case, to pursue his appeal with OPM. The basis of the court's decision to remand was the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Consequently, plaintiff argues that this Court should apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and remand the case to OPM.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction "allows a federal court to refer a matter extending beyond the `conventional experiences of judges' or `falling within the realm of administrative discretion' to an administrative agency with more specialized experience, expertise, and insight." National Communications Ass'n, Inc. v. American Tel. and Telegraph Co., 46 F.3d 220, 222-23 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576 (1952)). Typically, a court applies the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to cases involving factual or policy issues that fall within an agency's mandate from Congress. Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290, 304, 96 S.Ct. 1978, 48 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976); see Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 846 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir.1988). The rationale underlying the doctrine is that Congress has entrusted the regulation of a certain subject matter under a statute to an administrative agency. Accordingly, before a court takes any action to resolve a dispute, it should defer to the agency for guidance based on the agency's specialized knowledge. General Elec. Co. v. MV Nedlloyd, 817 F.2d 1022, 1026 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1011, 108 S.Ct. 710, 98 L.Ed.2d 661 (1988). Thus, courts should retain jurisdiction if the case involves only purely legal questions. Board of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of New York v. Harris, 622 F.2d 599, 607 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1124, 101 S.Ct. 940, 67 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).
When determining whether to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a district court generally considers the following four factors:
(1) whether the question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges or whether it involves technical or policy considerations within the agency's particular field of expertise; (2) whether the question at issue is particularly within the agency's discretion; (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and (4) whether a prior application to the agency has been made.
National Communications, 46 F.3d at 222. Additionally, courts should consider any delay in the resolution of the dispute that might result from remanding the case to an administrative agency. Id. (citing Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 409 U.S. 289, 321, 93 S.Ct. 573, 34 L.Ed.2d 525 (1973)).
Applying these factors here, we find that it is appropriate to exercise the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and to remand the case to OPM. First, the issues presented in this case fall within OPM's field of expertise. OPM is the agency responsible for administering the civil service retirement Subchapter of Chapter 83 (Retirement) of Title 5 of the U.S.Code. 5 U.S.C. § 8347(a); 5 C.F.R. § 831.101. As part of its mandate, OPM must also "adjudicate all claims" under the civil service retirement Subchapter, which includes claims arising under the early-out incentive program provided for in section 8336 ("Immediate Retirement"). 5 U.S.C. § 8347(b). Moreover, OPM has issued regulations implementing Chapter 83 which set forth the procedures for filing retirement applications, 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.104 & 831.501, for seeking reconsideration of an initial decision by OPM, 5 C.F.R. § 831.109, and for appealing OPM final decisions with the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"), 5 C.F.R. § 831.110; see 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d).
In addition to its responsibilities under Chapter 83, OPM is the agency charged with implementing Chapter 84 relating to the Federal Employees' Retirement System ("FERS") 5 U.S.C. § 8461; see Conway v. Office of Personnel Management, 59...
To continue reading
Request your trial