Laessle v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Entry Of Judgment and Granting Defendant's 11 Motion for Eentry of Judgment and Affirming Administrative Decision and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM B. LAESSLE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-11184
v.
CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND
SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Doc. 10)
AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Doc. 11)
AND
AFFIRMING ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
AND DISMISSING CASE
I. Introduction
This is a benefits case under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act,
29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA). Plaintiff William Laessle worked for North Electric
Supply Company selling new electrical parts “over the counter” and was a member of
the union. As a union member, plaintiff contributed to a multi-employer pension plan,
administered by defendant Central States Southeast and Southwest Pension Fund
(“Central States”) and governed by ERISA. Plaintiff accepted an early retirement offer
in July 2011 and began receiving pension benefits from the pension fund shortly
thereafter. Following his retirement, plaintiff obtained employment at J&T Electrical
Supply, Inc., a non-union company, conducting “outside sales” of used or reconditioned

electrical parts. On January 11, 2012, Central States notified plaintiff that his post
retirement employment was “restricted reemployment” under the terms of the pension
plan, making him ineligible to receive pension benefits. Central States therefore
stopped paying his pension benefits and sought to recoup payments made to date.
After pursing his administrative remedies, plaintiff sued Central States claiming a
violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).1
Before the Court are cross motions for judgment. For the reasons that follow,
plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and Central States’ motion is GRANTED. Central States’
decision finding plaintiff ineligible to receive pension benefits based on his employment
at J&T Electrical Supply Company is AFFIRMED. A separate judgment will enter
accordingly.
II. Legal Standard - Motion for Entry of Judgment
In Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., 150 F.3d 609 (6th Cir.1998), the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that summary judgment procedures are not
appropriate in the Sixth Circuit in denial of benefits actions under ERISA. Rather, a
district court should adjudicate an ERISA action as if it were conducting a standard
bench trial and, therefore, determining whether there is a genuine issue of fact for trial
would make little sense. Wilkins, 150 F.3d at 618-19 (Gilman, J., concurring in part and
setting out the judgment of the court of appeals on the issue regarding the summary
judgment standard).
Accordingly, the Court will decide this matter under the guidelines set forth in
1

Plaintiff also asserted a promissory estoppel claim, which he later dismissed.
See Doc. 7.
2

Wilkins2 by rendering findings of fact and conclusions of law based solely upon the
administrative record. See Eriksen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 39 F. Supp. 2d 864
(E.D. Mich. 1999).
III. Standard of Review
The parties agree that the standard of review in this case is whether the denial of
benefits was arbitrary and capricious because, as set forth in detail below, Central
States has discretionary authority to construe and interpret the provisions of the pension
plan. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989); Miller v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 979, 983 (6th Cir. 1991). This standard is the “least
demanding form of judicial review.” Administrative Committee of the Sea Ray
Employees Stock Ownership and Profit Sharing Plan v. Robinson, 164 F.3d 981, 989
(6th Cir. 1999). This requires “review of the quality and quantity of the medical evidence
and the opinions on both sides of the issues.” McDonald v. W.-S. Life Ins. Co., 347
2

The court of appeals’ “Suggested Guidelines” are as follows:
1. As to the merits of the action, the district court should conduct a de
novo review based solely upon the administrative record, and render
findings of fact and conclusions of law accordingly. The district court may
consider the parties' arguments concerning the proper analysis of the
evidentiary materials contained in the administrative record, but may not
admit or consider any evidence not presented to the administrator.
2. The district court may consider evidence outside of the administrative
record only if that evidence is offered in support of a procedural challenge
to the administrator's decision, such as an alleged lack of due process
afforded by the administrator or alleged bias on its part. This also means
that any prehearing discovery at the district court level should be limited to
such procedural challenges.
3. . . . the summary judgment procedures set forth in Rule 56 are
inapposite to ERISA actions and thus should not be utilized in their
disposition.
150 F.3d at 619.
3

F.3d 161, 172 (6th Cir.2003). The plan administrator's decision should be upheld if it is
“the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process” and “supported by substantial
evidence.” Glenn v. MetLife, 461 F.3d 660, 666 (6th Cir. 2006), aff'd, Met. Life Ins. Co.
v. Glenn, --- U.S. ----, 128 S.Ct. 2343 (2008). The standard, although deferential, is not
“inconsequential.” Moon v. Unum Provident Corp., 405 F.3d 373, 379 (6th Cir. 2005).
“While a benefits plan may vest discretion in the plan administrator, the federal courts
do not sit in review of the administrator's decisions only for the purpose of rubber
stamping those decisions.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
The following facts are gleaned from the administrative record.
A. Central States’ Pension Fund
Central States’ pension fund is administered by an equal number of employer
trustees and employee trustees. Employer trustees are officers of Employer
Associations in the Teamster Industry. Employee trustees are officials of Teamster
unions. The pension fund has over 422,000 participants. There are over 73,000 active
participants and over 178,000 retired participants receiving benefits. There are over
131,000 vested participants entitled to future benefits and over 31,000 beneficiaries of
deceased participants who are receiving or entitled to receive benefits. Over 2,000
employers contribute to the pension fund.
Plaintiff’s pre-retirement employer, North Electric Supply Company, is a
participating employer.
Under the Central States Pension Fund Trust Agreement, the Trustees of the
pension fund have discretionary power and authority to administer the trust in the
4

interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the pension fund and grants the Trustees
discretionary power and authority to decide claims for benefits and construe the terms
of the pension plan. The discretionary grants of authority granted to the Trustees,
include the power to manage the operation and administration of the trust in accordance
with applicable law. The Trust Agreement states that the Trustees are authorized to
formulate any and all necessary rules and regulations which they deem necessary or
desirable to facilitate the proper administration of the trust. All rules and regulations
adopted by the Trustees shall be binding "upon all parties hereto" and "all persons
claiming any benefits hereunder.” The Trust Agreement also states that the “Trustees
are vested with discretionary and final authority in adopting rules and regulations for the
administration of the Trust Fund.”
The Trust Agreement provides that the Trustees have the power to construe the
provisions of the Trust Agreement and "any construction adopted by the Trustees in
good faith shall be binding upon the Union, Employees and Employers". It states that
the Trustees are vested with discretionary and final authority construing plan
documents.
The Trust Agreement also provides that the Trustees have the power to
determine controversies. It states that all questions or controversies arising between
any parties in connection with the pension fund or its operation, whether as to any claim
for benefits or as to the construction of the language or meaning of the rules and
regulations adopted by the Trustees, shall be submitted to the Trustees, or to a
Committee of the Trustees "and the decision of the Trustees or of such committee
thereof shall be binding upon all persons dealing with the Fund or claiming any benefits
5

hereunder.”
Finally, the Trust Agreement states that the Trustees are vested with
discretionary and final authority in making all such decisions on claims for benefits by
participants and beneficiaries of the pension fund. The Trust Agreement requires that
the Trustees use and apply the pension fund to pay retirement benefits to eligible
employees "in accordance with terms, provisions and conditions of the Pension Plan to
be formulated and agreed upon hereunder by the Trustees."
B. Relevant Provisions of the Pension Plan
The pension plan at issue is the “Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Pension Plan,” as amended through May 1, 2012. The pension plan contains rules
regarding qualifications for all of the various pension benefits offered by Central States.
It also contains rules relevant to all retired participants, including plaintiff for suspension
of pension benefits where a retired participant is engaged in reemployment after retiring
prior to age 65. Such employment after retirement is restricted, as described below.
Section 4.13 of the pension plan provides in part:
(a)

The Pension Plan shall permanently suspend all Periodic Benefit
Payments of Pensioner ... during periods of his Reemployment to the
following extent:
...
(2)
all Periodic Benefit Payments to a Pensioner shall be permanently
suspended during all periods of his Restricted Reemployment ....

Section 4.13(g)(3) of the plan defines “restricted reemployment” as follows:
(3) Restricted Reemployment means and includes any of the following, except
that, effective as of April 9, 2009, a Pensioner age 65 or older, and who for a
period of 12 months following his Retirement Date has not been engaged in any
categories of reemployment described below in subsections (A) - (E) that would
subject him to a suspension of benefits, shall not be deemed to be in Restricted
Reemployment, regardless of the position or number of hours worked:
6

(A) Reemployment in a Core Teamster Industry (as defined in paragraph
4.13(g)(4)), except that a Pensioner that has reached age 65 may work a
maximum of 40 hours per month in such a position;
(B) Reemployment by a Contributing Employer (or an employer which was a
Contributing Employer at any time after September 25, 1980), except that a
Pensioner that has reached age 65 may work a maximum of 40 hours per month
in such a position;
(C) Reemployment in any position (or supervising any position) that is covered by
a Teamster Contract between that employer and any affiliate of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, except that a Pensioner that has reached age 65 is
not subject to this subparagraph (C);
(D) Reemployment in any position in the same industry in which the Pensioner
earned Contributory Service Credit while covered by the Pension Fund, except
that a Pensioner that has reached age 60 is not subject to this subparagraph (D),
and except that a Pensioner that has reached age 57 but has not reached age 60
may work a maximum of 80 hours per month in such position; or
(E) Reemployment in any position in the same job classification as any other
Participant then employed by a Contributing Employer located within 100 miles of
the position, except that a Pensioner that has reached age 60 is not subject to
this subparagraph (E), and except that a Pensioner that has reached age 57 but
has not reached age 60 may work a maximum of 80 hours per month in such
position.
(4) Core Teamster Industry means and includes Reemployment in any of the
following industries:
(A) trucking and/or freight;
(B) small package and/or parcel delivery;
(C) car haul;
(D) tank haul;
(E) warehouse;
(F) food processing and/or distribution (including grocery, dairy, bakery, brewery,
and soft drink
C. Plaintiff’s Employment and Retirement
Plaintiff was employed for 35 years with North Electric Company. During his
7

employment, he was a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local
Union No. 247. Plaintiff’s job classification was a “Truck Driver/Warehouseman.”
However his job duties throughout his employment involved working behind a sales
counter and selling new electric parts.
As a union member, plaintiff made contributions to and was a fully vested
beneficiary in the pension plan. As a result of his employment with North Electric
Supply Company, plaintiff earned 34.550 years of Contributory Credit which
established, subject to the plan’s reemployment rules, his eligibility for a Class 16, 34
year contributory pension in the amount of $1,678.25 per month for life, based upon his
age (54) at his retirement on June 30, 2011.
On or about October 27, 2008, plaintiff contacted Central States by telephone
and made inquiry about his reemployment opportunities after a potential early
retirement, indicating that he was “considering outside sales.” He spoke with Lucille
Jefferson, a reemployment analyst for Central States. Plaintiff says he specifically
asked Jefferson about employment in outside sale “of reconditioned parts” and
Jefferson told him that would be okay. Jefferson sent plaintiff several documents,
including a copy of Central States Approved Reemployment General Guidelines, a
Reemployment and Suspension of benefits Rule, and a Reemployment Questionnaire.
The Guidelines, in relevant part, state that Central States “must review specific
proposed work on a case-by-case basis to determine whether you could perform such
work while receiving your pension benefit…” The Guidelines also state:
Although it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of jobs that
would be acceptable for all pensioner in all parts of the country, as long as your
potential reemployment is not for a Contributing Employer and as long as it is not
8

covered by a Teamster Collective Bargaining Agreement or it is not the same
industry in which you rear4ned Contributory Service Credit with the Fund, the
following examples of work are generally permitted for an unlimited number of
hours regardless of where you live:
. retail sales clerk, stocker - tow truck driver -unarmed security
. farm work (but not including hauling products or supplies)
. government employment - any type of work provided the paycheck
comes directly from a governmental entity
. non profit (charity) employment - any type of work
. restaurant - residential landscaping
. residential construction - carpenter, plumber, HVAC, handyman gofer
(but not excavation, concrete work or material delivery)
. residential newspaper delivery
. sales (excluding delivery or merchandising)
. driver trainer for a school (but not a trucking company)
The Reemployment Questionnaire instructed plaintiff to “[p]lease complete this form in
its entirety and return it to us so that we can determine whether a specific job you are
considering or have accepted is within the rules.”
On January 10, 2011, plaintiff telephoned Central States and requested
reemployment rules. That same date, Central States wrote plaintiff and again provided
him the Reemployment General Guidelines, the Reemployment and Suspension of
Benefit Rules and a Reemployment Questionnaire.
On March 4, 2011, Central States received a Pension Application and a
Retirement Declaration Form dated February 28, 2011 from plaintiff, naming June 30,
2011 as his retirement date. The Retirement Declaration Form contained a certification
required of the participant. The participant was required to check a box stating “I have
not been employed in any capacity (including self-employment) at any time after my
retirement date. (emphasis in original) I agree that if I do become employed after
retirement, I will notify the Fund”. The alternative box to be checked stated, “ I have
worked and/or plan on working beyond my retirement date in the following capacity
9

(including self-employment).” Plaintiff signed the Retirement Declaration Form on
February 28, 2011 and did not have either box checked.
On April 11, 2011, Central States wrote plaintiff and confirmed receipt of his
retirement documents and noting that his Retirement Declaration Form was incomplete.
As a result, his application would be put on hold in order for him to complete the form.
On April 26, 2011 Central States received plaintiff’s completed Retirement
Declaration Form dated April 8, 2011, which again named June 30, 2011 as his
retirement date. The Retirement Declaration Form checked the box stating that plaintiff
certified “I have not been employed in any capacity (including self-employment) at any
time after my retirement date. I agree that if I do become employed after retirement, I
will promptly notify the Fund”. Plaintiff retired on June 30, 2011 at age 54. He began
receiving a monthly pension benefit shortly thereafter.
D. Post Retirement Events
1. Plaintiff’s Employment
On August 1, 2011, plaintiff began working part time for J&T Electrical. Plaintiff
worked as an outside sales person selling only reconditioned electric parts. Plaintiff
uses his own vehicle to make these outside sales calls and does not deliver any parts
On September 30, 2011, plaintiff’s pre-retirement union employer, North Electric
Supply, sent a note to Linda Townsend, the business agent at Teamster Local Union
247. The note said that Frank Nut, the president of North Electric Supply had called
J&T Electrical Supply on September 30, 2011 at 7:28 a.m. and asked for plaintiff.3 The
3

Plaintiff’s former employer somehow became aware that plaintiff was working at
J&T Electrical Supply, which is apparently a competitor.
10

president of North Electric Supply said he was told plaintiff was busy waiting on a
customer. After reviewing the note from North Electric Supply, Townsend called Central
States and stated that plaintiff was working at a non-union competitor, handing out
business cards and causing “a lot of grief for our Participating Employer.”
After receiving this information from the union, Central States sent plaintiff a
request for certification of his employment status. Plaintiff completed the certification
and returned to Central States on December 15, 2011. In the certification, plaintiff
stated that he was reemployed for three days a week, 5-7 hours daily at J&T Used and
Reconditioned Equipment. Plaintiff also stated that the business activity was sales and
reconditioning and his job title was sales/buyer/reconditioner. Plaintiff stated that his
hire date was September 1, 2011 and he was still employed at the company. Plaintiff
also noted on the form that he had called Central States to “check if it was ok. They told
me it shouldn’t be any problem”.
Central States then checked J&T Electrical Supply’s website. The website,
describing its business, states, “J&T Electrical Supply has been providing competitive
prices on industrial, commercial and residential electrical products since 1982. We offer
new, reconditioned and used parts that are backed by our 100% guarantee. We ship
worldwide! Check out our new product line and our online store of new, surplus,
refurbished and used products.” (emphasis in original).

2. Central States’ Determination
On January 11, 2012, Central States wrote plaintiff stating that is considered his
employment with J&T Electrical Supply to be “restricted reemployment” under the terms
11

of the plan and therefore he was disqualified from receiving retirement benefits. The
letter states in part:
This work is considered Restricted Reemployment because it is
* in a core teamster industry-construction and building materials
* in the same industry in which you worked while earning Contributory Service
Credit with the Pension Fund
* the same classification of work performed by other Pension Fund Participants
within 100 miles.
Please see Section 4.13 of the Pension Plan (copy enclosed) for an explanation
of the Fund’s reemployment policy and rules concerning…
E. Plaintiff’s Administrative Appeal
On April 23, 2012, plaintiff, through counsel, submitted an appeal of the January
11, 2012 decision. The appeal included plaintiff’s affidavit, in which he states:
. During 35 years of employment with North Electric Supply, his employer never
sold reconditioned electric parts.
. There was no Teamster organized business or pension fund contributor
engaged in the sale of reconditioned electric parts on an outside sales basis
within 100 miles of Plaintiff’s former employer
On appeal, plaintiff argued that while employed with North Electric Supply, the company
did not sell or stock reconditioned electrical parts and there were no pension fund
participants engaged in the sale of reconditioned electrical parts within 100 miles of his
position. Plaintiff also argued that he asked about this potential employment before
retiring and was told it was okay; therefore Central States is estopped from now
contending otherwise.
On May 1, 2012, Central States wrote plaintiff’s counsel and explained that the
January 11, 2012 denial letter was inaccurate regarding his appeals rights. Central
States explained that the determination in the January 11, 2012 letter was a staff
determination and should have advised plaintiff of his right to appeal to the Benefit
12

Claims Appeals Committee. Central States then explained that the pension plan
provides a two-step appeals process. The first set is a review by the Benefits Claims
Appeals Committee and the second step is a review by the Trustee Appellate Review
Committee. Central States advised plaintiff’s counsel that it would present plaintiff’s
appeal to the Benefit Claims Appeals Committee, step one in the appeals process, at
the committee’s May 17, 2012 meeting. If plaintiff disagrees with committee’s
determination, he may appeal to the Trustees, step two of the appeals process.
On May 17, 2012, Central States’ Benefits Claim Appeals Committee met to
consider plaintiff’s appeal. The one page minutes from this meeting includes the
following “comments:”
Mr. Laessle is appealing Staff’s decision that his work for J&T Electrical is
Restricted Reemployment. The Fund received an anonymous call stating that
Mr. Laessle was performing work in the same industry in which he earned
Contributory Service Credit (Electric Supply). Staff sent a screening packet
which was returned by Mr. Laessle confirming his work.
Mr. Laessle’s Attorney submitted a copy of the Fund’s general Guidelines
indicating that non-driver sales were approved on Mr. Laessle’s behalf. He
further states that Mr. Laessle did not perform sales, there is information on file
that proves he did engage in counter sales.
On May 21, 2012, Central States sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel denying
plaintiff’s appeal based on a finding that plaintiff’s reemployment was “(1) in a Core
Teamster Industry (warehouse and/or building materials), (2) in the same industry in
which he earned Contributory Service Credit, and (3) in the same job classification as
other Participants employed by a Contributing Employer located within 100 miles of his
position.” The letter also confirmed Central States’ intent to recover from plaintiff the
$11,747.75 in benefits that Central States maintains were wrongfully paid to plaintiff.
On August 12, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel filed an appeal of the May 21, 2012
13

decision to the Trustee Appellate Review Committee. As part of the appeal, plaintiff
submitted an updated affidavit in which he stated that reconditioned electric parts are
not considered “building materials.” Plaintiff also argued:
. Outside sales of reconditioned electrical parts does not fit in any of the seven
enumerated “core industries” in the plan;
. Plaintiff’s reemployment was not in the “same industry” as his prior employment
because outside sales of reconditioned electric parts was clearly different than
over the counter sales of new electric parts
. There was no evidence that plaintiff was working in the same classification as
other participants within one hundred miles.
On November 8, 2012, the Trustee Appellate Review Committee met to consider
step two of plaintiff’s appeal. The committee’s minutes include a detailed description of
the background of plaintiff’s claims and his argument, as well as the committee’s
conclusion. The minutes read:
After a full discussion, a motion was made, seconded and unanimously carried to
determine, on the basis of all the facts and circumstances presented to in the
record, that William B. Laessle’s employment as a salesperson with J&T
Electrical Supply, Inc. is Restricted Reemployment in (1) a Core Teamster
Industry (building material and/or construction), (2) the same industry in which he
earned Contributory Service Credit while covered by the Pension Fund, and (3)
same job classification as other Participants within 100 miles of his position. The
Trustees further determined to enforce the Fund’s right to receive restitution of
retirement pension benefit payments made during the period of this Restricted
Reemployment, limited to the amount of his gross reemployment wages, if less.
Although Mr. Laessle represented that he relied on the Fund’s approval of his
intended reemployment in making his decision to take early retirement, the
Trustees found no documents were submitted or contained with Central States’
records supporting Mr. Laessle’s claim that his reemployment was approved by
the Pension Fund. They noted that the Fund’s January 10, 2011 letter contains
no reference to any specific employment and the Approved Reemployment
General Guidelines it enclosed advised that the Fund must review specific
proposed work on a case-by-case basis. These Guidelines instructed Mr.
Laessle to complete and return the enclosed Reemployment Questionnaire so
that Central States can determine whether a specific job is within the rules. Mr.
14

Laessle did not submit, nor does he claim to have submitted, a completed
Reemployment Questionnaire. The Trustees also noted that Mr. Laessle failed to
notify Central States of his intended reemployment on his Retirement Declaration
Form. The Trustees noted that instead, he checked the box applicable to
Participants with no specific plans to work after retirement. In addition, in spite of
his agreement to promptly notify the Fund if he returned to work in any capacity,
Mr. Laessle failed to notify the Fund of his reemployment when it began on or
about August 11, 2011, and he did not disclose it until several months later when
Central States specifically inquired whether he had worked after retiring.
The Approved Reemployment General Guidelines lists sales (excluding delivery
or merchandising) as an example of work that is generally permitted as long as it
is not in the same industry in which the Pensioner earned Contributory Service
Credit with the Fund or violate other rules. However, the Trustees concluded that
Mr. Laessle is working in the same industry in which he earned Contributory
Service Credit with the Fund. The Trustees also concluded that his sales position
is the same job classification as other Participants employed by a Contributing
Employer within 100 miles of his position. The Trustees further concluded that
J&T Electrical Supply is in both (1) the warehouse industry (the company
operates an electrical supply warehouse with storefront), and (2) the building
materials industry (electrical products are building materials), and as an
employee of J&T Electrical Supply, Mr. Laessle is also in the Core Teamster
Industries of warehouse and building materials.
On November 13, 2012, Albert Nelson, Benefit Services Director for Central
States wrote plaintiff’s attorney, with a copy to plaintiff, explaining the Trustee Appellate
Review Committee denied his appeal and affirmed the decision that plaintiff is not
eligible to receive pension benefit payments for any month during which he is employed
as a salesperson for J&T Electric Supply because that employment is Restricted
Reemployment. The determination letter, as Central States calls it, essentially restates
the minutes of the committee’s meeting as the basis for the final determination.

V. Conclusions of Law
A. ERISA Permits Rules Restricting Pension Eligibility

15

As an initial matter, there is nothing unusual in Central States’ limiting a
participant’s ability to receive pension benefits if they retire early, before age 65.
Although ERISA prohibits a pension plan from failing to make payments to a participant
who has reached the normal retirement age, ERISA also creates a limited exception for
eligible participants who have reached normal retirement age but continue to work. 29
U.S.C. § 1053(a) provides in relevant part:
(a) Nonforfeitability requirements
Each pension plan shall provide that an employee's right to his normal retirement
benefit is nonforfeitable upon the attainment of normal retirement age and in
addition shall satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection.
(3)(B) A right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions shall not
be treated as forfeitable solely because the plan provides that the payment of
benefits is suspended for such period as the employee is employed, subsequent
to the commencement of payment of such benefits....
(ii) in the case of a multiemployer plan, in the same industry, in the same trade or
craft, and the same geographic area covered by the plan, as when such benefits
commenced.
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this subparagraph, including regulations with respect to the
meaning of the term “employed”.
29 U.S.C.A. § 1053(a). Thus, Central States’ prohibition on the receipt of pension
benefits for participants engaged in restricted reemployment who retire before age 65 is
consistent with ERISA.4
4

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has examined and upheld Central
States’ provision on restricted reemployment. See Gardner v. Central States,
Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, No. 93-3070, 1993 WL 533540 (6th Cir.
Dec. 21, 1993); Whisman v. Robinson, 55 F.3d 1140 (6th Cir. 1995).
16

B. Central States’ Decision Was Not Arbitrary or Capricious
Central States’ decision was neither arbitrary or capricious and was consistent
with the plan provisions. The plan states that restricted reemployment is employment is
employment that is one of the following three: (1) in a Core Teamsters Industry, (2) the
same industry in which the employee previously worked, and (3) has the same job
classification as another plan participant (Teamster member) employed by a
contributing employer (such as North Electric Supply Company) within 100 miles.
Plaintiff’s employment meets all three of these definitions, as explained below.
The crux of this case is plaintiff’s contention that working in outside sales selling
used or reconditioned electrical parts is wholly different from working in a store selling
new electrical parts. This argument cuts too fine. Plaintiff is advocating for a definition
of restricted reemployment that is far narrower than what the plan provides.5 Plaintiff’s
employment at J&T Electrical Supply clearly meets this definition, as Central States
explained to plaintiff during the appeal process.
First, his employment was in a “Core Teamsters Industry” - warehousing and/or
building materials. While plaintiff says that his employment should not be classified as
in the warehousing industry because he is working in sales outside of the building, this

5

The record contains some evidence that plaintiff was also involved in counter
sales at J&T Electrical Supply based on the information received from North Electric
Supply Company. While plaintiff denies he ever engaged in counter sales, it makes no
difference as it is clear plaintiff was involved in the same Core Teamsters Industry, and
indeed the same industry as his pre-retirement employment. Selling electrical parts
inside or outside of an electrical supply company, whether used or not, makes no
difference. The plan definitions of restricted reemployment are not as limiting as plaintiff
suggests.
17

argument ignores that J&T Electrical Supply operates from an electrical supply
warehouse. That plaintiff says he only does sales outside of the company’s building is
insignificant. Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that reconditioned electrical parts are not
“building materials” is not tenable.
Second, plaintiff’s employment is in the same industry as his pre-retirement
employment. Both J&T Electrical Supply and North Electrical Supply are in the
business of selling electrical parts. That J&T Electrical Supply sells both new and
reconditioned parts and North Electrical Supply Company sells only used parts is a
distinction without a difference.
Third, because both employers are in the same industry and are located within
100 miles of one another, it is clear that plaintiff’s reemployment is in the same job
classification of other plan participants–employees of North Electrical Supply Company.
Central States also identified other electrical parts companies located within the 100
mile radius.
In sum, Central States reasonably concluded that plaintiff worked selling
electrical parts before he retired and after he retired. It also reasonably concluded that
both companies are in the building materials industry because electrical products are
building materials and both are in the warehousing industry as both operate from
warehouses. Finally, Central States reasonably concluded that other covered
employees work within 100 miles of J&T Electrical Supply in sales of electrical parts.
Plaintiff makes much of his affidavit in which he presents his arguments as to
why he believes his employment is not restricted reemployment and says the record
does not contain any evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff is wrong. Central States did not
18

have to rely on or accept plaintiff’s assertions in his affidavit in light of its rational
decision, which was based on a comparison of both companies and plaintiff’s job duties
at both companies, that plaintiff was engaged in restricted reemployment.
Similarly, plaintiff’s argument that Central States’ decision was flawed because
plaintiff asked, and was told by Lucille Jefferson at Central States, that his position at
J&T Electrical Supply was permitted does not carry the day for him. The log of the
phone conversation shows that plaintiff requested a confirmation letter of the
conversation. Jefferson then wrote plaintiff as requested and enclosed all of Central
States’ guidelines concerning reemployment. The fact that nowhere in the letter did
Jefferson state that his reemployment was permissible contradicts plaintiff’s claim that
he received permission. Moreover, the guidelines make clear that Central States
reviews the specific work assignment on a case by case basis to determine if it is
restricted reemployment. In order to do that, plaintiff first needed to fill out a
questionnaire so Central States could make a determination. Plaintiff did not do that
before he began working for J&T Electrical Supply. Thus, it is fair to conclude, as
Central States did, that plaintiff was not given permission by Jefferson.
As Central States says in its response to plaintiff’s motion:
When Laessle retired, he simply moved to a nonunion job with a competitor of
North Electric Supply and again engaged in electrical supply sales. Selling
electrical supplies was what he had experience doing while he worked at North
Electric Supply, so it was logical that he found a new job at J&T Electrical Supply,
where he could use the experience he had gained. He argues that the difference
is that at North Electric Supply his job was inside sales of new equipment, but at
J&T Electrical Supply he did outside sales of reconditioned equipment. But that
distinction has no relevance. In both jobs he sold electric equipment in the
building material and construction industry. He can not reasonably expect to
collect a pension from Central States while he continues to work a few miles
away from his pre-retirement job, in the same job classification, in the same type
19

of business, in the same industry.
(Doc. 14 at p. 11).
Central States’ determination that plaintiff’s employment at J&T Electrical Supply
meets the plan definition of restricted reemployment was based on an examination of
the record and resulted from a reasonable interpretation of the evidence in the record.
There is no basis for overturning Central States’ decision.
SO ORDERED.
s/Avern Cohn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 13, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, November 13, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Bethel for Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

20