Kelly v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
Decision Date | 08 February 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil Case Number 3:16–cv–00543 (VLB) |
Citation | 233 F.Supp.3d 302 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | David KELLY, Richard Norko, Annette Dobbs, Peter Dellolio, Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. |
Thomas W. Meiklejohn, Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, Hartford, CT, William Wertheimer, Law Office of William Wetheimer, Bingham Farms, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Abbey M. Glenn, Donald L. Havermann, Sean K. McMahan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, Brian T. Ortelere, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher M. Wasil, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.
This case is about the decision of Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell") to terminate Plaintiffs retirees' full medical coverage benefits. Plaintiffs David Kelly, Richard Norko, Annette Dobbs, and Peter Dellolio (collectively, "Plaintiffs") are retired union workers and a surviving spouse who allege that the termination of such benefits constitutes an anticipatory breach of the collective-bargaining agreement; a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(1), 1132 ; and a breach of Honeywell's fiduciary duty under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a). [Dkt. 1 ]. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. At issue is whether and under what circumstances the provisions of the CBA and the incorporated documents create a vested right for retirees to obtain lifetime medical coverage benefits.
Plaintiffs David Kelly, Richard Norko, and Peter Dellolio are union members who worked at a plant in Stratford, Connecticut ("Plant") that produced a variety of aerospace products and gas turbine engines for Army helicopters and tanks. [Dkt. 45–2 (Def.'s Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement), ¶ 1; Dkt. 54 ( , ¶ 1; see Dkt. 44–2 ( . They retired with a pension and medical coverage benefits between June 1997 and October 1998. [See Dkt. 44–2, ¶¶ 1–3; Dkt. 55–1, ¶¶ 1–3]. Plaintiff Annette Dobbs is the surviving spouse of a deceased union retiree who retired with a pension and medical benefits in July 1999. [Dkt. 44–2, ¶ 4; Dkt. 55–1, ¶ 4]. The Court certified a class consisting of all Honeywell retirees who retired since October 28, 1994, whose medical insurance benefits Honeywell announced it intends to terminate. [See Dkt. 51 (Order Mot. Certify Class) ]. Class members are retired Plant maintenance and production workers represented by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") Local 1010 and office clerical and technical workers represented by UAW Local 376 (collectively, the "Union").
On September 30, 1998, the Plant, which was owned by Honeywell, closed. [Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 42; Dkt. 54, ¶ 42]. Textron Corporation ("Textron") owned the Plant from 1984 until AlliedSignal, Inc. ("AlliedSignal") purchased the Plant on or about October 28, 1994. [Dkt. 45–2, ¶¶ 5–7; Dkt. 54, ¶¶ 5–7]. Honeywell subsequently acquired AlliedSignal, which operated the Plant until it closed. [Dkt. 44–2, ¶ 7; Dkt. 55–1, ¶ 7].
Honeywell currently provides the named Plaintiffs and putative class members their medical coverage benefits and has done so throughout their retirement. [See Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 8; 54, ¶ 8]. In December 2015 Honeywell announced that it would terminate such benefits on December 31, 2016, but pursuant to an agreement stemming from this litigation the benefits are currently scheduled to terminate on February 28, 2017. [See Dkt. 53 , at 1 n. 2].
The Plaintiffs' rights to retiree health benefits are governed by three agreements: the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), the Supplemental Agreement ("SA"), and the Effects Bargaining Agreement ("EBA") (collectively, "the Agreements"), the pertinent provisions of which are set forth below. Textron and the Union negotiated and entered into the CBA, effective May 30, 1994.1 [See Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 9; Dkt. 54, ¶ 9; Dkt. 45–5 (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3, Local 376/Textron CBA), at 4]. By this time, AlliedSignal was in discussions with Textron to purchase the Plant, and the sale was contingent upon a CBA negotiation acceptable to AlliedSignal. [See Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 14; Dkt. 54, ¶ 14]. AlliedSignal representatives did not directly participate in the process as they communicated only with Textron representatives, but they ultimately approved the CBA and acquired Textron. [See Dkt. 45–2, ¶¶ 16–17; Dkt. 54, ¶¶ 16–17]. The relevant CBA provisions are as follows:
As referenced in the CBA, Textron and the Union negotiated the SA conferring specific Group Insurance benefits, which included medical health care benefits offered to employees and retirees. [See Dkt. 45–2, ¶¶ 28, 33; Dkt. 54, ¶ 28, 33]. AlliedSignal agreed to assume the provisions of the SA. [Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 37; Dkt. 54, ¶ 37]. The relevant SA provisions are as follows:
Textron and the Union also entered into the EBA, which delineated the benefits to which the Union's members would be entitled upon and after AlliedSignal's acquisition of Textron. [Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 19; Dkt. 54, ¶ 19; Dkt. 45–9 (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7, Local 376/Textron EBA), at 1]. AlliedSignal agreed to assume the provisions of the EBA. [Dkt. 45–2, ¶ 37; Dkt. 54, ¶ 37]. The relevant EBA provisions are as follows:
The Agreements represent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cason v. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n
...Medical Plan provided Retirees with a right to unalterable, lifetime medical benefits" (cleaned up)); Kelly v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. , 233 F. Supp. 3d 302, 306, 312–14 (D. Conn. 2017) (considering the relevant CBA, as well as two other agreements that "governed" the plaintiffs’ "rights to r......
-
Groden v. C. Carney Recycling Sols. U
...Fund constitutes an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA, §3 (1) and (3), 29 U.S.C., §1002(1) and (3). Compl. ¶¶ 4-6. The court in Kelly v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., explained that "[a] plaintiff may bring a civil action under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, '(A) to enjoin any act or practice wh......
-
Pacheco v. Honeywell, Int'l Inc.
...those in the case at hand, as each local union bargained with Honeywell to achieve different results. See Kelly v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 233 F.Supp.3d 302, 312 (D. Conn. 2017) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, to the extent that some common features or distinctions exist, the Court briefl......
-
Fletcher v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.
...concerning its obligation to continue providing retiree healthcare benefits. See Kelly v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., No. 3:16–cv–543, 233 F.Supp.3d 302, 311-12, 2017 WL 522163, at *6 (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2017) (noting that corporate counsel spent several months re-evaluating CBAs after the Tackett......