Hansen v. Int'l Painters
Decision Date | 11 October 2017 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 16-5028 |
Parties | NORMAN HANSEN, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Norman Hansen ("Plaintiff") filed suit in this Court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., seeking disability pension benefits that he believes were wrongfully denied by Defendant International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Plan (the "Pension Plan" or "Pension Fund") and Defendant Board of Trustees of the International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Plan (the "Board") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff also claims a document penalty under ERISA for failure to provide plan documents, a breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable relief.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's and Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, along with numerous briefs in support and opposition to the respective motions. For the reasons noted below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. However, as it relates to Count I of the Complaint, this matter is remanded to the Board of Trustees for consideration of whether a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between Plaintiff's employer and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades ("IUPAT") obligates the employer to contribute to the Pension Plan for hours for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and vacation time. Defendants' Motion is granted as to Counts II, III, and IV, but is denied as it pertains to Count I.
Plaintiff worked as a painter and was an active member of the IUPAT from 1982 to 2012. (Compl. ¶ 9.) He was a vested participant in the Pension Fund, which was established to provide retirement benefits for employees covered under CBAs between employers and the IUPAT. (Id. ¶ 2; Def.'s Mem. Support Mot. Summ. J. at 1 (citing Administrative Record ("AR") 32, 157, 160).)1 The Pension Plan is a multiemployer defined benefit plan for purposes of ERISA. (Compl. ¶ 2.) The Board of Trustees, which is composed of an equal number of IUPAT and employer representatives, administers the Plan and is the "named fiduciary" under ERISA. (Id. ¶ 3; see also AR 479.)
On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff fell off of a ladder and injured his right knee while working for Circle Wallcoverings, Inc. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff and Circle Wallcoverings, Inc. executed a Workers' Compensation Compromise and Release Agreement on August 8, 2013 for an agreed-upon amount in settlement of all wage, medical, and specific loss benefits related to the work injury. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also sought disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. (See AR 20.) By letter dated February 2, 2015, an administrative law judge determined that Plaintiff was disabled under the meaning of the Social Security Act beginning onSeptember 23, 2013.2 (AR 27.) Plaintiff agreed to the September 23, 2013 determination for purposes of establishing disability under the Social Security Act. (Compl. ¶ 16.)
On February 14, 2015, Plaintiff applied for disability pension benefits from the Pension Fund. (Id. ¶ 13.) On March 10, 2015, the Pension Fund acknowledged receipt of his application and requested a copy of the Social Security Administration award to evaluate his claim. (Id. ¶ 14; see also AR 12.) The Pension Fund denied Plaintiff's application for benefits on April 1, 2015 because he did not meet the requirement of Article 6, Section 6.12(4), which provides that a claimant must have "at least 1,000 Hours of Service in Covered Employment in the two Calendar Years prior to the year in which he or she became disabled." (AR 33.)
Plaintiff timely appealed the denial by letter dated May 7, 2015. The letter also included a request for copies of the IUPAT Pension Plan and any summaries; Plaintiff's disability pension application; annual statements of Plaintiff's pension benefits for 2011 and 2012; all records used to calculate Plaintiff's covered service for calendar years 2011 and 2012; and all other records related to Plaintiff's disability retirement application. (See AR 102.) In a letter dated May 27, 2015, Plaintiff reiterated his request for the various documents. (Compl. ¶ 20; AR 107.) On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff was provided with the 2015 Summary Plan Description ("SPD") of the IUPAT Pension Plan, his disability pension application and supporting documents, his pension statements from years 2011 and 2012, and "all other documents in the Fund's possession related to [his] benefit application and benefit calculation." (Compl. ¶ 21; AR 110.) The only document not provided to Plaintiff was theactual IUPAT Pension Plan itself. Plaintiff's appeal for review of the denial of benefits was scheduled for the September 2015 Board of Trustees meeting. (Compl. ¶ 23.)
On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a memorandum to Corinne M. Koch, the Pension Fund Administrator at the time, in support of his appeal. (AR 43-55.) The memorandum advanced several arguments for the basis of awarding benefits. First, Plaintiff claimed he had accumulated 998 hours for work in 2011 and 2012 and that Defendants should have rounded-up to 1,000 hours to ensure he would meet the 1,000 hour requirement. (AR 48-51.) He further argued that Defendants "cherry-picked" information because they had used his earned hours for 2011 and 2012, which equates to 894 hours, instead of his paid hours in 2011 and 2012, which equates to 998 hours. (Id.) Second, Plaintiff contended that Defendants refused to give him additional benefit hours with respect to workers' compensation, unemployment compensation due to layoff, vacation pay, all of which were allegedly in violation of the service crediting rules in 29 C.F.R. § 2530.200b-2. (AR 51-54.) On September 24, 2015, the Pension Fund postponed Plaintiff's appeal to the December 2015 meeting of the Board of Trustees. (AR 150.) On October 2, 2015, the Pension Fund provided to Plaintiff via email the IUPAT Pension Plan in effect as of January 2010 and January 2015. (AR 153.) Plaintiff's counsel requested hard copies of the documents, and the Pension Fund provided them on October 27, 2015. (AR 155.)
The Board of Trustees denied Plaintiff's appeal at the December 2015 meeting. The Board mailed their decision to Plaintiff by letter dated December 22, 2015, concluding that he lacked the required work credit in years 2011 and 2012 because his benefit hours totaled 894. (AR 157-59.) The Board of Trustees further stated that he was not entitled to additional credit for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, vacation payments because pursuantto the Pension Plan, "[t]here [was] no indication that [Plaintiff's] employer was obligated to make contributions to the Plan for [those] payment[s]." (AR 158.) As mentioned above, Section 6.12(a)(4) of Article 6 provides that a claimant must have "at least 1,000 Hours of Service in Covered Employment in the two Calendar Years prior to the year in which he or she became disabled." (AR 33.) As applicable to Plaintiff, the Board of Trustees relied on subsection (a) of the definition of "Covered Employment," which is "work or leave time that is . . . Hours of Service for which an Employer is obligated to make contributions to the Plan or the Trust for credit to the Plan." (AR 421.) In denying credit for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and vacation payments, the Board of Trustees concluded there was no indication that Plaintiff's employer was obligated to make contributions to the Pension Plan for the additional hours he sought.
Plaintiff filed a four-count Complaint in this Court on September 20, 2016. Count I is a claim for benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); Count II is a failure to provide plan documents claim in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1); Count III is a breach of fiduciary duty claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2); and Count IV is a request for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The parties filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on August 4, 2017.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) states that summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court asks "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether . . . one partymust prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Compton v. Nat'l League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 995 F. Supp. 554, 561 n.14 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255).
Summary judgment must be granted "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Once the moving party has produced evidence in support of summary judgment, the non-moving party must go beyond the allegations set forth in its pleadings and counter with evidence that presents "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." See Big Apple BMW,...
To continue reading
Request your trial