McGinnis v. Joyce, 79 C 4791.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79 C 4791.,79 C 4791. |
| Citation | 507 F. Supp. 654 |
| Parties | Robert McGINNIS, Plaintiff, v. William D. JOYCE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Robert McGinnis, Leon M. Despres and Albert Schwartz, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Marvin Gittler, Asher, Goodstein, Pavalon, Gittler, Greenfield & Segall, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
On November 19, 1979 Robert McGinnis ("McGinnis") filed this action against defendants William D. Joyce, John D. Kelahan, Frank Wsol, Robert J. Baker, John J. Barranco and Michael P. Murphy. Defendants are trustees of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund (the "Pension Fund") and Health and Welfare Fund (the "Welfare Fund") (collectively the "Funds"), of which McGinnis is a beneficiary. In McGinnis' Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") he charges defendants with a continuing and wilful refusal to grant McGinnis access to plan-year reports of the Funds, to which he is entitled under Sections 104(b)(2) and 104(b)(4) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
On December 4, 1980 McGinnis moved to amend the Complaint to include allegations that (1) defendants have unlawfully refused to provide McGinnis with a list of all employers contributing to the Pension Fund and (2) defendant Wsol and other employees of Local 710 have threatened McGinnis with violence if he continues his opposition activities (including pursuing this action) or ever comes to the union hall where the Funds' offices are located. Defendants oppose the proposed amendment, maintaining that its allegations are non-actionable under ERISA. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, McGinnis' motion to amend the Complaint is granted in part and denied in part.
McGinnis initially alleges in the proposed amendment that on June 30, 1980 he requested a list of all employers who were contributing to the Pension Fund and, being told to put that request in writing, did so about July 16. Beneficiaries were in fact entitled to that information under the terms of each Fund's plan (singly the "Plan," collectively the "Plans") as originally promulgated. However, by letters to all beneficiaries dated July 1, 1980, defendant trustees advised that both Plans had been amended so that beneficiary inquiries are now limited to whether specifically named employers are Fund contributors. McGinnis alleges that modification was intended to deny him access to documents and information covered by his requests in violation of ERISA § 104(b)(4).
Defendants raise a single argument in opposition to that proposed amendment1: Under the relevant labor regulation (CFR § 2520.102-3(b)(3)) trustees may elect alternatively to provide beneficiaries upon request either with a complete list of employer contributors or with information only as to specifically identified employers. In short, defendants contend that because they had the right to amend the Plans as they did, McGinnis has no basis for seeking relief.
That argument plainly misses the mark. Under ERISA § 502 a beneficiary may bring a civil action "to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan." McGinnis alleges that at the time he made his request, his rights under the terms of the Pension Plan included access to the requested information.2 That being true, the trustees were certainly not free to amend the Plan retroactively to deny him that right. Defendants' contentions are thus insufficient to justify denial (in effect a dismissal) of McGinnis' first proposed amendment.
McGinnis' second offered amendment is a new Count IV alleging that:
McGinnis seeks injunctive and monetary relief under ERISA § 510:
It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan, or this subchapter ... or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan, or this subchapter.... The provisions of ERISA § 502 shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.
Defendants argue that McGinnis' charges track ERISA § 511, a criminal statute that does not imply a private right of action:
It shall be unlawful for any person through the use of fraud, force, violence, or threat of the use of force or violence, to restrain, coerce, intimidate, or attempt to restrain, coerce, or intimidate any participant or beneficiary for the purpose of interfering with or preventing the exercise of any right to which he is or may become entitled under the plan, or this subchapter.... Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
They contend that Sections 510 and 511 are mutually exclusive, so that the fact that McGinnis has alleged facts actionable under Section 511 (though not by McGinnis) precludes him from obtaining any relief under Section 510.
McGinnis concedes that Section 511 does not imply a private right of action and that the allegations contained in his amendment may in fact be actionable under that provision. However, he argues that those allegations also support a claim of "discrimination against a ... beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions" of the Plans or ERISA. Therefore, McGinnis says, he is entitled to relief under the literal language of Section 510.
Defendants' argument that the applicability of Section 511 to these facts precludes relief under Section 510 is plainly untenable:
1. Nothing in the text of those provisions or their legislative history (as submitted to the Court by the parties) supports the construction defendants suggest. If anything the legislative history supports the contrary position. See, H. Conf. Report No. 93-1290, 1974 U.S.Cong.Code and Administrative News at 4639, 5110.
2. Defendants' contention that because McGinnis may state a civil cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 411 and § 412, no cause of action should be read into Section 510, is equally without merit. Neither general principles of statutory construction nor the specific authorities cited by defendants suggest that the wrong alleged may not be redressable concurrently under two or more statutes.
3. Finally, defendants' argument that Section 510 on its face applies only to "discrimination in employment or union membership" and that the discrimination alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cowden v. Montgomery Cty. Soc. for Cancer Control
...Inc., 534 F.Supp. 251, 253 (N.D.Ill.1982) (suit to enforce 29 U.S.C. § 1140 brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)); McGinnis v. Joyce, 507 F.Supp. 654, 657 (N.D.Ill.1981) (failure to supply information as required by ERISA provision and discriminatory conduct proscribed in 29 U.S.C. § 1140 r......
-
Burch v. George
...v. Independence Federal Sav. Bank (D.Md.1988) 692 F.Supp. 587, 593 [applying statute to group health insurer]; McGinnis v. Joyce (N.D.Ill.1981) 507 F.Supp. 654, 656-657 [applying statute to plan trustees who threatened violence against participant] ), Marlene identifies no decision that has......
-
Newton v. Van Otterloo
...retaliatory action that affects neither the terms nor conditions of employment nor rights under the plan. In McGinnis v. Joyce, 507 F.Supp. 654, 657 (N.D.Ill.1981) (Shadur, J.), the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had violated § 1140 by threatening him with violence should he continue......
-
Healy v. Axelrod Const. Co. Pension Plan & Trust
...vesting, the language of the statute cannot be read so as to limit its application solely to those situations." In McGinnis v. Joyce, 507 F.Supp. 654, 657 (N.D.Ill.1981), the court held that threatening an employee with violence to prevent him from pursuing his lawsuit constituted a cogniza......