Metzgar v. U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 22 Pension Fund
| Decision Date | 28 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 13-CV-85V(F) |
| Parties | GARY METZGAR, RICHARD MUELLER, KEVIN REAGAN, RONALD REAGAN, CHARLES PUGLIA, SHERWOOD NOBLE, DANIEL O'CALLAGHAN, Plaintiffs, v. U.A. PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL NO. 22 PENSION FUND, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF U.A. PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL NO. 22 PENSION FUND, and DEBRA KORPOLINSKI, in her capacity as Plan Administrator, for the U.A. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 22 Pension Fund, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION and ORDER1
APPEARANCES:
CHRISTEN ARCHER PIERROT, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JULES L. SMITH, of Counsel
The Powers Building
16 West Main Street, Suite 207
Rochester, New York 14614
This case was referred to the undersigned by Hon. Richard J. Arcara for all pretrial matters on October 29, 2014 (Dkt. 40). It is presently before the court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed February 1, 2018) (Dkt. 98), Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 101), Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint filed February 1, 2018 (Dkt. 110), and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction also filed February 1, 2018 (Dkt. 111).
In this ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., action Plaintiffs allege unlawful reductions and/or elimination of Plaintiffs' accrued pension benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1054(g), denial of Plaintiffs' pension benefits in violation of § 1132(a)(1)(B), breach of fiduciary duty in violation of § 1104(a)(1), and declaratory relief. On February 1, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment (Dkt. 98) along with the Affirmation of Jules L. Smith in Support of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. 98-3) and an Affidavit In Support Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. 99) attaching Exhibits A - Q (Dkt. 99-1-17) ("Defendants' motion"). An (Amended) Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment was filed February 1, 2018 (Dkt. 100).
Plaintiffs filed their Notice Of Motion For Summary Judgment also on February 1, 2018 (Dkt. 101) attaching Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. 101-1), Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statement Of Undisputed Facts (Dkt. 101-2), Attorney Affirmation of A. Nicholas Falkides, Esq. (Dkt. 101-3) with Exhibits A-T (Dkts. 101-4-23), the Affidavit of Ronald Reagan in Support of Motion forSummary Judgment (Dkt. 102), Affidavits in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment of Kevin Regan (Dkt. 103), Ronald Reagan (Dkt. 104), Gary Metzgar (Dkt. 105), Richard Muller (Dkt. 106), Daniel O'Callaghan (Dkt. 107), Charles Puglia (Dkt. 108), and Sherwood Noble (Dkt. 109). ("Plaintiffs' motion")
Defendants' Response To Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 115) and Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment And In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. 116) was filed March 5, 2018.2 Plaintiffs' Counter-Statement of Facts (Dkt. 118), Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. 118-1) and the Attorney Affirmation of A. Nicholas Falkides (Dkt. 118-2) were filed March 5, 2018. Exhibits A - I for Plaintiff's Opposition (Dkt. 118) were filed in a separate filing on March 5, 2018 (Dkt. 119). Defendants' Memorandum Of Law In Reply To Plaintiffs' Opposition And In Further Support Of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 120) and Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. 121) were filed March 19, 2018.
Plaintiffs also moved on February 1, 2018, for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint (Dkt. 110) along with the Attorney Affirmation of Matthew K. Pelkey (Dkt. 110-1) attaching Exhibits A-H (Dkts.110-2-9) ("Plaintiffs' Motion To File A Supplemental Complaint"). Defendants opposed the motion by filing on March 5, 2018, Defendants' Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File A Supplemental Complaint (Dkt. 114). Plaintiffs' reply, Attorney Affirmation of Matthew K.Pelkey, was filed March 19, 2018 (Dkt. 122) with the continuation of exhibits filed as (Dkt. 124).
By papers filed February 1, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 111) along with Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion For Preliminary Injunction and the Attorney Affirmation of Matthew K. Pelkey, Esq. (Dkt. 111-2) attached Exhibits A-F (Dkt. 111-3-18) ("Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction"). Defendants' Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction was filed March 5, 2018 (Dkt. 117) and Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Their Motion For Preliminary Injunction was filed March 19, 2018 (Dkt. 123).
Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. Based on the following Defendants' motion should be GRANTED; Plaintiffs' motion should be DENIED; Plaintiffs' motion to file a supplemental complaint should be DENIED; Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction should be DENIED.
Plaintiffs are retired members of U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 22 ("the Union") who, based on their prior active Union membership, were entitled to participate in the Defendant U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 22 Pension Fund ("the Fund"). The Fund is a defined benefit multi-employer pension plan under a Trust Agreement and Declaration created April 18, 1999 by the Fund's Trustees made up of representatives of the Union and an association of plumbing, heating and cooling service contractors doing business in Western New York ("the Trust"). The Fund'spension benefits to eligible Union member participants are provided through the U.A. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 22 Pension Fund Restated Plan of Benefits adopted by the Fund's Trustees effective May 1999 ("the Plan"). The Fund has eight trustees on the Board of Trustees - four representatives of the contractors and four from the Union. Defendant Korpolinski is the Administrator of the Fund, a position she had held since 2005; prior thereto the position was held by Janice L. Maslen. The Fund is financed by contributions of participating employers, plumbing, heating and cooling contractors, of Union members based on the number of hours worked by Union members who were employed by contractors participating in the Fund as required by a multi-employer Union Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). Plaintiffs are among 1,868 participants and beneficiaries of the Fund as of March 2012 which then had assets of approximately $140 million. An Employee is eligible for benefits under the Plan upon performing 800 hours of covered employment, i.e., as a plumber or steamfitter, employment which is subject to the CBA ("covered service or employment") and is vested as an accrued pension benefit under the Plan after five years of covered service. Contributing employers make contributions to the Fund to support employee pensions based on an employee's hours of work in covered employment, but not on behalf of employees who serve in managerial positions or as project managers or estimators.
Article V Section 3 of the Trust grants to the Trustees the "full and exclusive discretionary authority to determine all questions of coverage and eligibility, method of providing benefits and all related matters . . . [and that the Trustees have] full discretionary authority to interpret the provisions of this Trust Agreement and the Plan of Benefits . . .." Dkt. 99-1 at 12-13. The Trust also requires the Trustees comply withERISA and the Internal Revenue Code so that "the Trust and Plan of Benefits . . . will be structured and operated to qualify for approval by the Internal Revenue Service ("I.R.S.") as a tax-exempt Trust and Plan to ensure that the Employer contributions to the Fund are proper deductions for income tax purposes" and states [i]t is the intention of the Trustees to fully comply with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code." (Art. VII Sec. 4). Dkt. 99-1 at 29.
The Plan in Art. V Sec. 1(a) provides for a "Normal Retirement" pension available to employees at age 65, Dkt. 99-2 at 15, an "Early Retirement" pension Art. V Sec. 1(c) at a reduced monthly payment, Dkt. 99-2 at 18, and as provided in Art. V Sec. 1(d) a "Special Early Retirement" pension ("Special Early Retirement" or "pension") available to an employee with at least 30 years of covered service at age 55 under a so-called Rule of 85, Dkt. 99-2 at 18, in the amount of the employee's Accrued Benefit. Id. Beginning in 2002, each Plaintiff, then eligible under the Rule of 85, applied for and received the Fund's approval of a Special Early Retirement pension (Dkt. 101-2 ¶¶ 35-37). The Plan also provided for a suspension of pension benefits for any recipient who received a Normal Retirement pension from the Fund and who worked for over 40 hours per month in a disqualifying employment or an industry covered by the Plan (steamfitting or plumbing). Similarly, a recipient of an early retirement pension benefit, such as Plaintiffs' Special Early Retirement pensions, was subject to a suspension of pension benefits for any month in which the recipient worked in an occupation in which an employee was employed when pension benefits began, in the same industry and geographic area covered by the Plan, for more than 120 hours per month. Art. V Sec. 3(a)(i)) (Dkt. 99-2 at 21-22) ("Disqualifying Employment"). Employment in "a managerial position" or as a "project manager or estimator" for a participating employer by aparticipant receiving a Special Early Retirement pension was not Disqualifying Employment subjecting the recipient to a suspension of benefits under Art. 5 Sec. 3 of the Plan ("Art. V Sec. 3"). Dkt. 99-2 at 21. Former employees who...
To continue reading
Request your trial