Server v. Interpace Corp., 79-3832
| Decision Date | 01 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3832,79-3832 |
| Citation | 657 F.2d 1115 |
| Parties | 2 Employee Benefits Ca 2054 Concha B. SERVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERPACE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Raul L. Martinez, Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for defendant-appellant; Neal S. Dudovitz, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Robert M. Simpson, Rose, Klein & Marias, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before ANDERSON and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge.
The district court granted Concha Server's motion for summary judgment finding that as a matter of law the offset of Server's workers' compensation benefits against her retirement benefits violated provisions of ERISA. Appellant, Interpace Corporation, appeals and we reverse.
Appellee, Server, was an employee of Interpace from July 26, 1951 until October 1, 1975 when she suffered a job related back injury that left her 68% permanently disabled. At the time of the injury she held the position of ware sorter. She was awarded $25,690.00 in disability indemnity payable at the rate of $70.00 per week commencing May 10, 1975 and continuing through November 1, 1982.
On January 27, 1976, Server then age 62, applied for her retirement benefits under the Labor Management Retirement Pension Plan (LMRPP). Server's application was approved June 21, 1976 effective October 1, 1975. However, the Pension Committee determined that under Article IV P C of the Company's Retirement Pension Plan Server would not be entitled to receive her monthly pension payment of $126.50 until termination of the disability benefits in November 1982.
Server's appeal of the decision was denied as was her request for reconsideration. On April 11, 1979 she filed suit in the district court for the Central District of California. She claimed that by offsetting her disability award against her pension, Interpace had breached Article IV P C of the LMRPP and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and particularly Sections 1053, 1056, and 1103. She also contended that Treasury Regulation § 411(a)-4(a) (Title 26 C.F.R.) is void as contrary to the mandates of ERISA to the extent that it is interpreted as allowing forfeiture of pension benefits protected by § 1053(a).
On September 17, 1979, the district court granted Server's summary judgment motion ruling that as a matter of law the offset of Server's workers' compensation benefits violated ERISA in that it constituted a forfeiture of vested pension benefits under § 1053, an assignment of benefits contrary to § 1056, and an improper reduction of the employer's funding obligation under § 1103. The court also ruled § 1.411(a)-4(a) was void to the extent it provided to the contrary. The court awarded Server her full monthly pension of $126.50, attorneys' fees of $950.00 and costs.
On appeal an order granting summary judgment will be reversed if a genuine issue of material facts exists or if as a matter of law the moving party was not entitled to prevail. Program Engineering v. Triangle Publication, 634 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1980); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
When the district court rendered its ruling for Server it did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Buczynski v. General Motors Corp., 456 F.Supp. 867 (D.C.N.J.1978), rev'd 616 F.2d 1238 (3d Cir. 1980), aff'd sub. nom. Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 449 U.S. 949, 101 S.Ct. 1895, 68 L.Ed.2d 402 (1981). In its opinion the Court unanimously ruled that: (1) workers' compensation offsets are permissible under ERISA; and (2) that the Treasury Regulation § 1.411(a)-4(a) is valid.
In these two cases, Buczynski and Alessi, the employees of General Motors and Raybestos-Manhattan brought suit against the two companies claiming that the offset of their workers' compensation awards against their retirement pension benefits was unlawful under New Jersey law. The district courts in adjudicating this issue not only determined the offset was prohibited by state law but also found that it violated § 1053(a) of ERISA. Additionally, the district courts held that § 1.411(a)-4(a), which authorized the offset clauses, was invalid as contrary to the intent of ERISA. The cases were consolidated on appeal and the Third Circuit reversed.
In affirming the Third Circuit the Supreme Court first concluded that the term "nonforfeitable" as defined by ERISA in § 1002(19) and used in § 1053(a) 1 simply assured "that an employee's claim to the protected benefit is legally enforceable but it does not guarantee a particular amount or a method for calculating the benefit." 101 S.Ct. at 1900. The composition of the pension benefit is left in large measure to the determination of the parties through the collective bargaining process. Id.
Thus, before determining that a forfeiture of a vested benefit has occurred the method used to calculate the benefits due under the plan must be examined. The court found the employers had utilized the "integration" procedure, a method which allows an employer to combine pension funds with other sources of income available to pensioners in computing the amount they will receive under the company's pension plan. 101 S.Ct. at 1901. Under this method a pensioner remains entitled to receive his established pension rate while the pension plan trustees are allowed to reduce the amount of the payment paid from the pension fund by the comparable amount paid to the employee from other federal or state sources. Id. at 1902-1903.
Though integration is not mentioned in ERISA, Treasury Regulation § 1.411(a)-4(a) 2 expressly authorizes integration with other benefits provided by federal or state law. The Court found that workers' compensation awards fell clearly within the boundaries of the Regulation in view of the fact that IRS rulings approving integration of these awards with pension benefits had been approved by Congress when ERISA was enacted. 101 S.Ct. at 1904. Additionally, the Court found that both the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v. Whaland, Civ. No. 81-533-D.
...preempt the provisions of the state statute at issue. See Attachment IV to amicus legal memorandum.15 The Ninth Circuit, Server v. Interpace Corp., 657 F.2d 1115 (1981), has held that ERISA permits the offset of workers' compensation benefits against retirement benefits under a plan, and, s......
-
Losada v. Golden Gate Disposal Co.
...employee group." Id. at 520 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. at 1905 n. 16. This court confronted its first post-Alessi decision in Server v. Interpace Corp., 657 F.2d 1115 (9th Cir.1981). The district court in that case had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, ruling that offsetting her workers' com......
-
La Riviere v. E.E.O.C.
...material fact remained for trial or if the moving party as a matter of law was not clearly entitled to prevail. Server v. Interpace Corp., 657 F.2d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 1981); Gaines v. Haughton, 645 F.2d 761, 769-70 (9th Cir. 1981). In this case, the cross-motions for summary judgment were......
-
Employee Benefits Committee of Retirement System of Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Pascoe
...of ERISA and therefore the Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(a)-4(a) permitting such offsets is valid. See also Server v. Interpace Corp., 657 F.2d 1115 (9th Cir. 1981). 2 The Supreme Court initially noted that while Section 203 prohibits forfeitures of benefits, the amount of benefits ......