Griffin v. N.Y. State Nurses Ass'n Pension Plan
| Decision Date | 22 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–CV–824 (JFB)(WDW).,10–CV–824 (JFB)(WDW). |
| Parties | Loleta GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,v.NEW YORK STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN AND BENEFITS FUND, Nancy Kaleda, Elliott Kellman, Anne Tahaney, Kenneth Krugar, Charyea Wegee, Marc J. Leff, Ann Parish, Bart Metzger, Joseph Cabral, Fred Eisgrub, and G. Thomas Ferguson, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lauren P. Raysor, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.Charles F. Seemann III and Kara L. Lincoln, of Proskauer Rose LLP, New Orleans, LA, and Neal S. Schelberg, of Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, and Albert Kalter, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Loleta Griffin (hereinafter “Griffin” or “plaintiff”) brought this action in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, against New York State Nurses Association Pension Plan and Benefits Fund (the “Plan”) and Nancy Kaleda, Elliott Kellman, Anne Tahaney, Kenneth Krugar, Charyea Wegee, Marc J. Leff, Ann Parish, Bart Metzger, Joseph Cabral, Fred Eisgrub, and G. Thomas Ferguson, individually named trustees who serve as administrators and fiduciaries of the Plan (the “Trustees”)(collectively “defendants”), alleging state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”). Defendants removed the action to this Court. Plaintiff challenges the determination of her pension benefits under the Plan. Specifically, plaintiff argues that she is entitled to additional years of credited service under the Plan and that the decision to deny her additional pension benefits based upon the this credited service by the Plan's Trustees was arbitrary and capricious.
Presently before the Court are defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because they are preempted by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144, and defendants' motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on plaintiff's ERISA claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants' motions in their entirety. Specifically, the plaintiff concedes, and the Court agrees, that plaintiff's state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment “relate to” the Plan and, thus, plaintiff's claims are preempted by ERISA.1 In addition, with regard to plaintiff's claim brought under ERISA, plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether the denial of additional pension benefits was arbitrary and capricious and, thus, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. In particular, after carefully reviewing the administrative record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-moving party, the Court concludes that defendant provided plaintiff with a full and fair review of her claim, that defendant acted in accordance with the Plan's plain and unambiguous terms, and that the defendant's denial of benefits was reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and not erroneous as a matter of law. In short, the undisputed facts demonstrate that there is no basis to find that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and no rational factfinder could conclude otherwise. Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted.
The Plan is an employee pension benefit plan governed by ERISA. (SPD at D000031.) The Plan is a “multiemployer Taft–Hartley trust fund,” and the board of trustees is comprised equally of representatives of the New York State Nurses Association and the management of participating facilities. (SPD at D000025.) The Plan provides pension benefits to nurses who work for employers that participate in, and contribute to the Plan. (SPD at D000009.)
The Plan is administered by its Trustees, who “have broad discretion to determine eligibility for benefits and interpret the language of the Plan.” (SPD at D000025.) 3
The Plan further provides that:
[t]he Trustees shall have full authority to determine eligibility requirements for benefits and to make such rules and regulations consistent with the orderly administration of the Plan as they deem necessary, desirable, or appropriate. The Trustees shall have the discretionary power and authority to construe the terms and provisions of the Plan.
The Plan further states:
any exercise of discretion or other action by the Trustees shall be equitable and non-discriminatory and shall be uniform in application to all Employees, Participants or beneficiaries in similar circumstances.
(SPD at D000080–81.)
The Plan provides: “Covered employment is employment with an employer in a position subject to a collective bargaining agreement which specifies that the employer is required to make a [Plan] contribution on your behalf.” (SPD at D000010.)
The Plan pays participants' pension benefits based on their years of credited service. (SPD at D000046–47.) Credited service is earned by working for an employer that participates in, and contributes to, the Plan. The Plan states: “Credited service in the Plan is earned by working for a contributing employer in a bargaining unit position classified as covered employment ... [e]mployees of the Plan and the Fund can earn credited service while they are employed in an eligible position covered by the Plan.” Two types of credited service can be earned: future service credit and past service credit. (SPD at D000010.)
The Plan provides: “Future service credit is earned if you work for an employer in a covered position after your employer joined the Plan and became obligated to make contributions to the Plan on your behalf.” (SPD at D000010.) (emphasis added).
The Plan provides: “Past service credit is earned if you were working for an employer in a covered position at the time your employer joined the Plan, provided your employer makes plan contributions to cover your past service credit.” (SPD at D000010.) (emphasis added).4
Credited service is forfeited if a Participant experiences a break in service pursuant to Article 4.04(c) of the Plan.
Article 4.04(c) reads:
[i]f a participant completes less than 500 Hours of Service 5 in any Plan Year such year shall be deemed a break year and the Participant's pre-break Credited Service shall be forfeited unless:
(A) The Participant has completed at least 10 full years of Credited Service (including at least one year of Future Service Credit) prior to the break year; or
(B) The Participant completes 500 Hours of Service in a subsequent Plan Year and the number of her consecutive break years does not equal or exceed the number of her years of Credited Service prior to the break year.
(SPD at D000041.) (emphasis added).6
From February 1975 until August 1982, plaintiff was employed at New York Presbyterian Hospital. (AR at D000096, D000103, D000143.) Plaintiff's employment ended at New York Presbyterian in August 1982. New York Presbyterian was a participating employer in the Plan and, thus, plaintiff accrued 7.667 years of credited service for her covered employment.
From August 1982 until plaintiff retired in February 2009, plaintiff was employed at St. Vincent's Mary Immaculate Hospital (“Mary Immaculate”). Mary Immaculate did not become a participating provider in the Plan until February 1, 1995. Therefore, under the Plan, plaintiff worked less than 500 hours of service in each of the 12 consecutive years from 1983 through 1994. Plaintiff was subsequently credited with 12.667 years of past service credit and 14 years of future service credit based upon Mary Immaculate's participation date, for a total of 26.667 years of credited service.
By letter dated September 25, 2003, the Plan provided plaintiff with an estimated pension calculation of $3,660.02 net monthly benefit based upon 33.667 years of credited service. (AR at D000128–29.) The letter included the language “[t]his estimated calculation is based on unverified employment information we have received from your employer ... [and] shows an estimate that will remain constant and is subject to the provisions of the Plan and final review upon retirement.” (AR at D000128.) The Plan prepared another estimated statement on October 19, 2005 which included a net monthly benefit of $3,772.92 based upon the same 33.667 years of credited service. (AR at D000127.) 7 Both estimated statements included credited service for New York Presbyterian and Mary Immaculate. According to the administrative record, it was discovered in May 2007 that the Plan's computer system incorrectly credited plaintiff with her New York Presbyterian employment. (AR at D000119.) Subsequently, the Plan verbally informed the plaintiff of the error and sent plaintiff a corrected estimated statement which included only the credited service for Mary Immaculate. This estimate, provided on May 22, 2007, reflected 26.667 years of credited service for plaintiff's employment at Mary Immaculate and a net monthly benefit of $2,228.54 and zero credits for plaintiff's employment at New York Presbyterian. (AR at D000125–26.) The Plan provided another estimated statement on January 14, 2009, which also reflected the same 26.667 years of service and a net monthly benefit of $2,252.11. (AR at D000109–10.) 8
On February 5, 2009, plaintiff applied for pension benefits with a retirement date of May 1, 2009. (AR at D000103–06.) By letter dated February 28, 2009, plaintiff appealed the calculation of her past service credit.9 In response, by letter dated March 17, 2009, the Plan denied her appeal and stated that plaintiff was accurately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zarringhalam v. United Food
...both Union and contributing employers' appointees, as required by the Taft–Hartley Act. See Griffin v. N.Y. State Nurses Ass'n Pension Plan & Benefits Fund, 757 F.Supp.2d 199, 210–11 (E.D.N.Y.2010). In other words, the joint administration of a benefit plan by both employer appointees and u......
-
Boison v. Ins. Serv. Office, Inc.
...” Id. (quoting McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir.2008)); Griffin v. New York State Nurses Ass'n Pension Plan and Benefits Fund, 757 F.Supp.2d 199, 210 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (“A conflict of interest is included as one of several different factors that a reviewing judge......
-
Latronica v. Local 1430 Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Pension Fund
...by both employer and union appointees. See, e.g. , Durakovic , 609 F.3d at 138-39 ; Griffin v. N.Y. State Nurses Ass'n Pension Plan & Benefits Fund , 757 F. Supp. 2d 199, 210-11 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ; Zarringhalam v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local 1500 Welfare Fund , 906 F. S......
-
Zarringhalam v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local 1500 Welfare Fund
...Union and contributing employers' appointees, as required by the Taft-Hartley Act. See Griffin v. N.Y. State Nurses Ass'n Pension Plan & Benefits Fund, 757 F. Supp. 2d 199, 210-11 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). In other words, the joint administration of a benefit plan by both employer appointees and uni......