Pickering v. USX Corp.
Decision Date | 03 November 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 87-C-838J,88-C-763J and 91-C-636J. |
Citation | 809 F. Supp. 1501 |
Parties | Tony PICKERING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USX CORPORATION, Defendant. Lynn A. BARNEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USX CORPORATION, Defendant. Reldon C. KENNEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USX CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lynn C. Harris, Provo, UT, Edward Moriarity, Robert P. Schuster, Gerry Spence, Spence, Moriarity & Schuster, Jackson, WY, Allen K. Young, Young & Kester, Springville, UT, and Jonah Orlofsky, Plotkin & Jacobs, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.
Dawne S. Hickton, D.B. King, Pittsburgh, PA, David A. Anderson, Michael L. Larsen, Gordon L. Roberts, Keith E. Taylor, Parsons, Behld & Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT, and Peter Post, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, PA, for defendant.
Jurisdiction of this matter, brought under section 502(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) (1988), of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), is footed on subsection (e) of section 502, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e).1 Because defendant, a Delaware corporation, was doing business in the State of Utah during the time of the acts complained of in this lawsuit, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (1990 & Supp.1992).
The action was tried to the court without jury pursuant to section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, which empowers benefit plan participants or beneficiaries "to obtain ... appropriate equitable relief...." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Because section 502(a)(3) provides only equitable relief, there is no right to a jury trial. See Cox v. Keystone Carbon Co., 861 F.2d 390, 393 (3d Cir.1988) (citing Great American Fed. Sav. and Loan Assoc. v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 375, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 2350, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979)).
Plaintiffs assert five general claims for relief. First, plaintiffs allege that defendant USX Corporation ("USX") interfered with plaintiffs' employment, thereby depriving them of identified and vested employee benefits, and did so in violation of section 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (1988). Section 510 provides in pertinent part:
Second, plaintiffs assert the USX decreased plaintiffs' accrued benefits by amending a defined benefit plan without obtaining appropriate approval for such an amendment in violation of section 204(g) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) (1988). Section 204(g) provides in pertinent part: "The accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan, other than an amendment described in section 1082(c)(8) ... of this title...." Id.
Third, plaintiffs assert that USX significantly reduced the rate of plaintiffs' future benefit accrual by amending a defined benefit plan without giving appropriate notice in violation of section 204(h) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(h) (1990). Section 204(h) provides in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crocker v. Kv Pharm. Co.
...Anderson v. Resolution Trust Corp., 66 F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir.1995) (second alternation in original) (citing Pickering v. USX Corp., 809 F.Supp. 1501, 1567–68 (D.Utah 1992)).1. KV'S Fiduciary Status Under Eighth Circuit precedent, one who “is vested with and exercises discretionary authorit......
-
Apsley v. The Boeing Co., Case No. 05-1368-EFM.
...a plant that had a disproportionate number of employees about to qualify for an early or normal retirement); Pickering v. USX Corp., 809 F.Supp. 1501, 1549 (D.Utah 1992) (deciding to accelerate the closure of a plant in order to prevent a large number of employees from obtaining vested pens......
-
Zimmerman v. Sloss Equipment, Inc.
...have noted that language in Section 503(a)(3) providing for equitable relief creates no right to a jury trial. Pickering v. USX Corp., 809 F.Supp. 1501, 1509 (D.Utah 1992) (citing Cox v. Keystone Carbon Co., 861 F.2d 390, 393 (3rd Recently, in Pegg v. General Motors Corp., 793 F.Supp. 284 (......
-
Normann v. Amphenol Corp.
...participant [and] each employee organization representing participants in the plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1054(h); see also Pickering v. USX Corp., 809 F.Supp. 1501, 1563 (D.Utah 1992) (holding that "[c]onstructive notice through a member's union bears no relation to section 204(h)'s actual Here, Am......
-
Forfeiture by Cancellation or Termination - Charles Tiefer
...143 (1990)). 96. The leading cases are Gavalik v. Continental Can Co., 812 F.2d 834, 851 (3d Cir. 1987) and Pickering v. USX Corp., 809 F. Supp. 1501, 1550-52 (C.D. Utah 1992). 97. Dana M. Muir, Plant Closings and ERISA's Noninterference Provision, 36 B.C. L. Rev. 201 (1995). 98. Once emplo......