ERISA – Pension and Health Benefits

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Tamika Graham v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, et al.,

Case No.: 19-2745

Officials: EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: ERISA – Pension and Health Benefits

Chicago offers public-school teachers higher pay if they earn extra college credits. Tamika Graham sought a higher salary under this program in July 2015, only to have her application ignored. She tried again in September, and this time she was not ignored. Instead she was fired on the ground that her application had been backdated, which the Board of Education took as fraud. A hearing officer ordered her reinstated with back pay, but the Board did not honor this decision in full, published a declaration that she is a fraudster, and refused to consider her for open positions. These and all other factual statements come from her complaint, which we must accept at this stage of the litigation.

Graham contends that the school system violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 by discriminating against her on account of sex and race, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by depriving her of pension and health benefits, and violated an Illinois law that requires the prompt payment of wages. She has some other legal theories as well, and we explain later why they need not be discussed. As for the three we have mentioned: the district judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that it does not state a claim on which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The judge stated that the §1983 claim fails because the complaint does not identify other employees who received better treatment from the school system, that the ERISA claim fails because the school system’s plans are exempt from ERISA, and that the wage payment claim fails because the correct calculation of Graham’s pay depends on interpreting a collective-bargaining agreement, which the judge thought preempted by federal labor law. See 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7579 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2019) (dismissing with leave to file an amended complaint), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110365 (July 2, 2019) (dismissing the amended complaint and terminating the suit).

With respect to all but the ERISA, §1983, and late-payment claims, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss for want of a justiciable controversy. With respect to the §1983 and late-payment claims, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. With respect to the ERISA claim, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.