Phillips v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith Nat'l Pension Tr.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-02402-TC-KGG |
| Parties | THOMAS ALLEN PHILLIPS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, ET AL., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This lawsuit involves the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs filed this suit against various individuals and entities concerning the administration of their pension plans and retirement health plan. They allege that Defendants violated various requirements of ERISA and improperly denied Plaintiffs their early retirement benefits. See Doc 57. All Defendants, having jointly filed an answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, move for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Doc. 111 at 1. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' requests for oral argument, Doc. 123, and supplemental briefing, Doc. 138, are denied.
The standard applicable to Rule 12(c) is identical to that for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Atl. Richfield Co v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1160 (10th Cir. 2000). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” from each named defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Evaluating a motion to dismiss is a two-step process. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 678-80 (2009); see also Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011). First, the Court ignores legal conclusions, labels, and any formulaic recitation of the elements. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-80. Second, the Court accepts as true all remaining allegations and logical inferences and asks whether the claimant has alleged facts that make his or her claim plausible. Id.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A claim need not be probable to be considered plausible. Id. But the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the claimant, must adduce “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
Plausibility is context specific. The requisite showing depends on the claims alleged, and the inquiry usually starts with determining what the plaintiff must prove at trial. See Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Assoc. of African Am.-Owned Media, 140 S.Ct. 1009, 1014 (2020). The nature and complexity of the claims influence what plaintiffs must plead. Cf. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2008) ().
This dispute concerns the administration of employee benefits in defined pension and retirement health plans. To understand the dispute requires context about its participants, the benefit plans at issue, and the obligations and expectations created by the plans.
1. There are four named Plaintiffs: Thomas Phillips, Kevin Murphy, Michael Egger, and William Lofthouse. Each participates in a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.[1] Doc. 57 at ¶¶ 4-10.[2] And each worked as a boilermaker for at least one employer that was party to an International Brotherhood of Boilermakers collective bargaining agreement, which required pension contributions. Id. at ¶¶ 23-38. As relevant to this suit, Lofthouse also participates in a Boilermakers ERISA health fund. Id. at ¶ 175.
There are a multitude of defendants. They fall broadly into two categories, the Pension Defendants and the Health Fund Defendants. The first category of defendants, referred to as the Pension Defendants, includes two sub-categories, referred to as the Pension Entities and the Pension Trustees. The Pension Entities are the BoilermakerBlacksmith National Pension Trust (Pension Trust) and the Board of Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust (Pension Board). The Pension Trustees are six individual trustees of the Pension Trust: Scott Anderson, John Fultz, Lawrence McMana-mon, Lyndal Turner, Mike Hidas, and Mark Vandiver.
The second category of defendants are referred to as the Health Fund Defendants. Two sub-categories fall within this second category: the Boilermaker National Health & Welfare Fund (Health Fund) and its Board of Trustees (Health Fund Board).
2. Ultimately, this is a dispute about the availability of early retirement benefits to participants that retired before normal retirement age. Those benefits, and all aspects of the Pension Trust, are governed by a written plan document. See Doc. 71-1; Doc. 71-3.
Three provisions of the Plan are critical to this dispute. The first is Section 4.07 titled “Eligibility for Early Retirement Pension.” It provides that “[a] Participant who is retired shall be entitled to an Early Retirement Pension” if he has attained a combination of age and years of service requirements and filed a written application for benefits. Doc. 71-1 at § 4.07; Doc 71-3 at § 4.07; Doc. 57 at ¶ 53.
The second provision is Section 8.04(a). Entitled “Benefits Payments Generally,” it governs benefits payment start dates and dictates that payment of early retirement benefits should begin after “[t]he Participant terminates his Covered Employment and retires, as that term is defined in Section 8.08.” Doc. 71-1 at § 8.04; Doc. 71-3 at § 8.04.
The third section of the Plan, Section 8.08, provides for early retirement benefits. It states, in material part, the following:
Before Normal Retirement Age.... [T]o be considered retired and entitled to a pension under this Plan, a person must withdraw completely and refrain from (1) any employment or self-employment in a job classification of the type included in a Collective Bargaining Agreement anywhere in the United States, or (2) any direct supervision of such a job classification in the construction industry.
Doc. 71-1 at § 8.08, “Disqualifying Employment” (previously titled “Retirement,” see Doc. 71-1 at § 8.08). As used in that definition, “a Collective Bargaining Agreement” is an International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Collective Bargaining Agreement. Doc. 71-1 at §§ 1.06, 1.22; Doc. 71-3 at §§ 1.06, 1.22.
3. The events leading up to the dispute are not complicated. Each Plaintiff retired from his boilermaker job before normal retirement age, as defined by the Plan. Each applied for-and received-early retirement pension benefits under the Plan. Doc. 57 at ¶ 44. The First Amended Complaint specifically alleges that each Plaintiff intended to retire when he left his boilermaker job and sought early retirement benefits. Id. at ¶ 59. Despite that intention, each Plaintiff later resumed work in another type of job (i.e., electrician, safety coordinator, steam fitter, scheduler/planner), but did not engage in any postretirement boilermaker work. None of Plaintiffs' subsequent jobs was “of the type included in a[n International Brotherhood of Boilermakers] Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Id. at ¶ 50.
The Pension Trust initially approved the applications and began paying Plaintiffs their early retirement benefits. For three of the Plaintiffs, Phillips, Murphy, and Egger, payment of those benefits did not last long. Approximately one year after each had retired, each received a letter from the Pension Trust notifying him that because he had begun to work for an employer who contributed to the Plan, he was not entitled to early retirement benefits. Doc. 57 at ¶¶ 90, 92, 94. Lofthouse, on the other hand, was paid benefits for seven years before the Pension Defendants notified him that he had not retired and was therefore not eligible for benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 99-100. The delay in notification was significant in terms of timing and purported impact. Phillips, Murphy, and Egger learned that they had been overpaid from the day that they retired through the dates of the letters, a year or more later. Id. at ¶¶ 91, 93, 95. But it was nearly seven years-and some $640,000-later before Lofthouse received his letter. Id. at ¶¶ 99-100, 136.
Despite their demand to refund the benefits that had already been paid, the letters were short on authority. They did not refer to specific Plan or statutory provisions to justify either the termination of benefits or recoupment, nor did they provide any information as to what additional material or information might be necessary to perfect or preserve Plaintiffs' claims. Doc. 57 at ¶ 96. Further, Phillips's and Egger's requests for documents, such as relevant collective bargaining agreements, were denied. See id. at ¶¶ 106-09, 119-26.
Each Plaintiff alleges he filed an administrative appeal and contends that Defendants, specifically the Pension Trust denied them all. Doc. 57 at ¶¶ 101-02, 111-12, 118, 127, 131-32. Each received an appeal denial letter notifying him that his “appeal regarding the termination of [his] Early Retirement Pension and the recoupment of overpaid pension benefits due to the determination that [he] did not separate from service at the time of [his] retirement, was presented to the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust Appeal Committee” on a specified meeting date. Docs. 80-5 at 1; 80-7 at 1; 80-9 at 1; 80-12 at 1. The denial-of-appeal letters cited Plan provisions and Treasury regulations that the termination-of-benefits letters did not cite, which Plaintiffs allege deprived them of an adequate opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial