Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Committee v. Administrator of Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan
| Decision Date | 15 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-55384,NON-BARGAINING,N-BARGAINING,93-55384 |
| Citation | 72 F.3d 686 |
| Parties | , 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 2269, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9584, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,685, Pens. Plan Guide P 23915S HUGHES SALARIED RETIREES ACTION COMMITTEE; Peter Formo; Richard E. Miller; Norman C. Rigby, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF the HUGHESRETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jerome Tauber, Richard Dorn, Sipser, Weinstock, Harper & Dorn, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert F. Walker, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Santa Monica, California, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG, FLETCHER, PREGERSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, O'SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents two questions:
(1) whether Sec. 104(b)(4) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1024(b)(4), requires a plan administrator to furnish individual participants upon request with the names and addresses of other plan participants. We hold that it does not because such a list is not an "instrument[ ] under which the plan is established or operated," id.;
(2) whether a plan administrator has a general fiduciary duty under ERISA Sec. 404(a)(1)(A), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)(1)(A), to furnish individual participants with the names and addresses of other plan participants. We hold that it does not because this
information is not related to "providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries [or] defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan," the exclusive purposes for which the plan administrator may discharge its duties, id.
Plaintiffs are three retirees (the "Retirees") who receive defined pension benefits from the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan (the "Plan"). They are members of a self-appointed committee called the Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Committee, an organization that is also a named plaintiff. The Plan has some 60,000 participants, of whom some 10,000 are retirees.
The Retirees brought this action under ERISA to compel the Plan administrator (the "Administrator") to furnish them with a list of the names and addresses of all retired participants of the Plan so the Retirees can "communicate with them about matters of concern to all retired participants regarding their pensions...." Am.Compl. p 1. In particular, the Retirees say they want to communicate with other retirees about Hughes's allegedly "unlawful use of excess Plan assets for the sole purpose of meeting Hughes' funding obligations" and "to gain support for their efforts to obtain increased benefits through negotiation or if required, litigation, as well as to monitor the Plan." 1 Id. at p 10.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. A three-judge panel of our court reversed. 2 Hughes
Salaried Retirees Action Comm. v. Administrator of the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, 39 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1994). A majority of the active judges of the court voted to rehear the case en banc, 53 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.1995), and we now vacate the panel's opinion and affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
We first consider the Retirees' claim that the Administrator must furnish them with the names and addresses of retired Plan participants because this information is an "instrument[ ] under which the plan is established or operated" within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 104(b)(4). Am.Compl. pp 18-20. Section 104(b)(4) provides:
The administrator shall, upon written request of any participant or beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated summary plan description, plan description, and the latest annual report, any terminal report, the bargaining agreement, trust agreement, contract, or other instruments under which the plan is established or operated. The administrator may make reasonable charge to cover the cost of furnishing such complete copies.
29 U.S.C. Sec. 1024(b)(4) (emphasis added). According to the Retirees, the requested list of names and addresses falls within the statute because the Plan could not operate without it.
The district court, in rejecting the Retirees' interpretation, explained:
Such an interpretation so strains the meaning of [Sec. 104(b)(4) ]'s language that it is impossible to conceive of any documents even tangentially related to an employee benefit plan which would not fall within its scope. Moreover, if there are limits, there is no way that [the Retirees'] reading of the statute would allow a plan administrator to know what they are. Such a result would subvert the intent of Congress to provide "detailed and uniform guidance" as to what information must be furnished to plan participants.
Order of Dismissal, filed July 9, 1991, at 6.
We agree with the district court that the Retirees' interpretation of Sec. 104(b)(4) would "strain the meaning" of the section. The district court reasoned:
Statutory construction of ERISA " 'must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.' " Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 740 [105 S.Ct. 2380, 2389, 85 L.Ed.2d 728] (1985) (quoting Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 194 [105 S.Ct. 658, 661, 83 L.Ed.2d 582] (1985)). Following this approach, a list of plan participants cannot possibly be considered an instrument "under which the plan is established or operated." The plain language of the statute limits the universe of documents falling within that phrase to documents similar in nature to those specifically identified, which describe the terms and conditions of the plan, as well as its administration and financial status. While this Court need not define precisely those documents falling under that provision, it is clear that a list of plan participants does not. Obtaining such a list provides participants with absolutely no information whatsoever about the plan, and therefore ERISA neither requires nor contemplates its disclosure.
We agree with the reasoning of the district court. It is well established that " 'words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.' " See, e.g., Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 114-15, 109 S.Ct. 1668, 1673, 104 L.Ed.2d 98 (1989) (quoting Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 472 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S.Ct. 2458, 2462, 86 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)) ( "vacation benefits" in ERISA Sec. 3(1) in light of other benefit plans listed in same section). The Supreme Court has recently characterized the documents Unlike the documents specifically listed in Sec. 104(b)(4)--plan descriptions, annual and terminal reports, and bargaining and trust agreements--participants' names and addresses provide no information about the plan or benefits. As the district court said so aptly, it would strain the meaning of "other instruments under which the plan is operated" to interpret it to include participant names and addresses. Cf. Werner v. Morgan Equip. Co., 15 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2295, 2301, 1992 WL 453355 (N.D.Cal.1992) (); Lee v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 604 F.Supp. 987, 1002 (S.D.Ohio 1985) ().
subject to Sec. 104(b)(4)'s disclosure requirements as "governing plan documents." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, --- U.S. ----, ----, 115 S.Ct. 1223, 1231, 131 L.Ed.2d 94 (1995). The relevant documents are those documents that provide individual participants with information about the plan and benefits. As the legislative history bears out, the documents contemplated by Sec. 104(b)(4) are those that allow "the individual participant [to] know[ ] exactly where he stands with respect to the plan--what benefits he may be entitled to, what circumstances may preclude him from obtaining benefits, what procedures he must follow to obtain benefits, and who are the persons to whom the management and investment of his plan funds have been entrusted." S.Rep. No. 127, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4838, 4863. 3
In reversing the district court, our original panel reasoned that Sec. 104(b)(4) requires disclosure of all documents that are "critical to the operation of the plan." Hughes, 39 F.3d at 1007. This test, however, admits of no limiting principle. For example, under this interpretation, an administrator of a medical plan would be required to disclose medical histories of participants in the plan, and the administrator of a pension or profit-sharing plan would be required to disclose wage records of participants, because the medical histories and wage records are crucial to the operation of the respective plans. It is fanciful to think that Sec. 104(b)(4) was enacted to give plan participants an absolute right to obtain such information about other plan participants.
Indeed, under the original panel's interpretation of Sec. 104(b)(4), a plan administrator would be required to disclose virtually everything in its plan files upon request. The panel reasoned that the language "other instruments" is not limited to documents similar to the documents specifically listed in Sec. 104(b)(4) because the statutory language "contains...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co.
... ... 20 Employee Benefits Cas. 2493, Pens. Plan Guide P 23923T ... Janice Fay FAIRCLOTH; ... Packing Company (Lundy), brought this action against Lundy, which is the ESOP's administrator, ... violated provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ ... See Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Comm. v. Administrator f the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, 72 F.3d 686 (9th Cir.1995) (en ... The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare explained that a Plan ... ...
-
Colin v. Marconi Commerce Sys. Employ. Retirement
... ... COMMERCE SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN, Retirement Committee for the Marconi USA ... bring this action against Defendants Marconi Commerce Systems ... Retirement Income Plan for Salaried Employees or the G.E.C.-U.S.A. Employees' ... from it because, as a former plan administrator no longer in control of the plan, Marconi USA ... have used language to that effect"); Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Comm. v. Administrator f the Hughes Non-Bargaining Ret. Plan, 72 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir.1995) (en ... ...
-
Allen v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan
... ... ruling on various pending Motions in this action and promising that a written opinion would ... § 1132(a). Plaintiffs are former salaried employees of the Garrett Corporation, now part of ... other rate as may be determined by the Committee from time to time." ( Id. § 1.3.) ... new plan provides that "[t]he Plan Administrator shall have full discretionary authority and power ... nature of the no-offset rule for early retirees in the unamended Plan as the basis for its ... In Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Committee v. or of the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, 72 F.3d 686, 691 (9th ... ...
-
Mondry v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... Mutual Insurance Company, Ameripreferred PPO Plan ... Stephen R. Swofford, ... the language on which the claims administrator had relied in denying her claim. When the ... administrators under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, ... When CIGNA's appeals committee heard Mondry's Level Two Appeal several months ... , in the court's view, and for causes of action brought under section 1104(a)(1), section ... of plan funds has been entrusted, Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Comm. v. Admin. of s Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, 72 F.3d 686, 690 (9th Cir ... ...