Employment – ERISA

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment – ERISA — fiduciary duty

An ERISA fiduciary-duty claim was properly dismissed where the defendant acted in its capacity as an employer, not as a fiduciary, when it terminated the plaintiff’s employment and canceled his health insurance.

“The benefits claim is insufficient in any event. The first and critical allegation in a § 502(a)(1)(B) claim is that the plaintiff is a participant or beneficiary entitled to benefits under the terms of an employee-benefits plan. Sometimes plaintiffs attach the relevant plan documents to the complaint as insurance against the risk that the complaint’s description of the plan’s terms is ambiguous or otherwise deficient. Brooks did not do so. As a result, we are left with the description of the Plan contained in the second amended complaint. That description is notable for what it does not contain. There are no allegations that the terms of the Plan promised Brooks continued health-insurance benefits after his employment was terminated. True, the complaint does refer generally to benefits due to disabled employees, but Brooks was no longer an employee and was not entitled to those benefits. In short, the complaint contains no allegations about benefits promised to disabled former employees like Brooks. That’s a critical omission.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

12-1155 Brooks v. Pactiv Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conlon, J., Sykes, J.