Sperling v. Texas Health Enterprises, Inc.
Citation | 791 F. Supp. 662 |
Decision Date | 22 May 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. H-92-83,H-92-84. |
Parties | Tina Williams SPERLING, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. Mary Elizabeth GERKE, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
John C. Fleming, Zeleskey, Cornelius, Hallmark, Roper & Hicks, Lufkin, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Iris J. Jones, Stephen Greenberg, Julie L. Benson, Small Craig & Werkenthin, Austin, Tex., for defendant.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions to Reconsider. For the reasons stated below, the Court is of the opinion that the motions should be GRANTED.
Plaintiffs filed separate actions in Texas state court, alleging that they were discharged by Defendant, in violation of Texas law, because they refused to participate in Defendant's employee injury plan. Defendant removed both cases to this Court on the ground that Plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., because the Plan is an employee benefit plan for purposes of ERISA and Plaintiffs' claims "relate to" the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Subsequently, Plaintiffs each moved to remand, and this Court denied both motions on the ground that in ruling on Plaintiffs' claims, a court would necessarily have to determine whether Defendant's mandatory-participation policy is lawful. Given that the Plan is admittedly an ERISA employee benefit plan, this determination would necessarily require the Court to decide whether the Plan complies with the requirements of ERISA. Thereafter, the cases were consolidated.
Upon reconsideration, the Court believes that its earlier ruling was in error. Plaintiffs' only claim is that, under Texas law, an employer cannot require an employee to participate in an employee accident plan and forego any common-law rights she may have against the employer. In the Court's view, such a claim does not "relate to" an ERISA employee benefit plan such that it is preempted by ERISA.
Under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, an employer may subscribe to workers' compensation insurance, or it may chose not to. Many employers who chose not to subscribe offer alternative employee benefit plans which provide certain benefits in the event an employee is injured in the course and scope of her employment. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Defendant has chosen not to subscribe to workers' compensation insurance and has enacted an alternative benefit plan (the "Plan"). It is also undisputed that Defendant requires all of its employees to participate in the Plan and to waive any common-law rights they may have against Defendant. Plaintiffs argue that they were discharged because they refused to participate in the Plan, and that their discharge violates Texas law.
Texas recognizes the traditional employment at will doctrine. In general, absent a prior agreement between the parties, an employment contract is terminable at any time by either the employer or the employee. However, the Texas Supreme Court has recognized several common-law public-policy exceptions to the traditional doctrine. For example, notwithstanding the employment at will doctrine, an employer cannot discharge an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act. Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734-35 (Tex.1985).
Plaintiffs argue that a similar exception should be recognized in the instant case. Plaintiffs readily concede, however, that to date the Texas Supreme Court has not recognized a cause of action against an employer for discharging an employee for failure to participate in a mandatory employee benefit plan. Obviously, this Court cannot create such a cause of action under Texas law. Thus, Plaintiffs will be unable to recover unless they can proceed in state court.
Id. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 483, 112 L.Ed.2d at 485.
Defendant argues that the instant case is controlled by Ingersoll-Rand. In particular, Defendant asserts that "if Defendant did not have an ERISA plan or if Defendant's ERISA Plan did not contain these provisions, Plaintiff would have no claim for wrongful termination." Def.'s Resp. Pls.' Mot.Recons.Pls.' Mot.Remand at 3. Therefore, according to Defendant, Plaintiffs' claims necessarily "relate to" an ERISA plan and are therefore preempted under section 1144. The Court does not agree.
The Court recognizes, as it must, the broad preemptive effect of section 1144. Ingersoll-Rand, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. at 482-83, 112 L.Ed.2d at 483-84. However, only state laws that "relate to" an ERISA plan are preempted. Thus, in Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne,1 the Court held that a state law requiring the payment of severance benefits was not preempted by ERISA because it did not require the establishment or maintenance of an ERISA plan. Therefore, the statute did not relate to the plan. Id. 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S.Ct. at 2218.
Similarly, the preemptive sweep of section 1144 is not without limits. For example, the Supreme Court has held that ERISA does not preempt a state's general garnishment statute, even where the statute is applied to collect judgments against participants in an ERISA plan. Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 841, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 2191, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988).
In the Court's view, the instant case is more like Coyne and Mackey than it is like Ingersoll-Rand. First, in Ingersoll-Rand the plaintiff was an ERISA-plan participant. Not so in the instant case. Indeed Plaintiffs claims are premised on the assertion that it is unlawful for an employer to require an employee to forego common-law rights, in this case by requiring participation in an ERISA plan. While the Court readily acknowledges Congress's intent, in enacting ERISA, to create a uniform body of employee benefit law, nothing in either ERISA's text or legislative history indicates that Congress meant to override state laws prohibiting employers from forcing employees to forego common-law rights by compelling participation in an ERISA plan.
It is true that if mandatory-participation clauses like the one at issue here are illegal under Texas law then Defendant will be forced to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
...Saylor v. Parker Seal Co., 975 F.2d 252 (6th Cir.1992); Samuel v. Langham, 780 F.Supp. 424 (N.D.Tex.1992); Sperling v. Texas Health Enters., Inc., 791 F.Supp. 662, 665 (S.D.Tex.1992); Howard v. Indiana Mich. Power Co., 812 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.Ind.1992); Klank v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.Sup......
-
Group Dekko Services LLC v. Miller
...is no cause of action if there is no [ERISA ] plan" is determinative. Id. at 484. Finally, Miller cites Sperling v. Texas Health Enterprises, Inc., 791 F.Supp. 662 (S.D.Tex.1992), and Jones v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Cal., 980 F.Supp. 327 (C.D.Ca.1997), in support of her contention tha......
-
Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirkgard
...from forcing employees to forego common-law rights by compelling participation in an ERISA plan." Sperling v. Texas Health Enterprises, Inc., 791 F.Supp. 662, 664 (S.D.Tex.1992). Appellees are not seeking benefits under the ERISA plan. This lawsuit concerns a waiver of statutory and common ......