Lewis v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

Filing 16

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim- So Ordered by District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 2/7/2019. (Barletta, Barbara)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FRANK LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

SHEET METAL WORKERS'
NATIONAL PENSION FUND,
Defendant.

C.A. No. 18-cv-287-JJM-PAS

________________________ )
ORDER
Plaintiff Frank Lewis filed this action to challenge an Appeals Committee
determination (ECF No. 12-2 at 138-142) approving his application for early
retirement benefits by the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund ("Plan") 1 but
subjecting it to delays per the Plan documents. The Plan responded to the Complaint
by moving to dismiss. ECF No. 12.

Facts
Mr. Lewis was a member of the Sheet Metal Workers' Union, Local 17
("Union") for many years. 2

ECF No. 1 at 2,

~3,

7. From about 2008 until 2011,

Mr. Lewis was an unemployed member of the Union. I d. at 3,

~13.

He then became

"employed by General Dynamics Electric Boat ["Electric Boat"] from February 14,
2011 to October 4, 2015." ECF No. 1 at 2,

~11.

His position with Electric Boat was

The Fund is a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan ("Plan") under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 197 4, as amended, 29 U.S.C § 1001 et
seq. ("ERISA"), is subject to delays under the Plan.
2 He had earned 16.9 years with the Union. ECF No. 1 at 2, ,J7.
t

in the sheet metal industry but not under a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA'')
with the Sheet Metal Workers' Union ("Union") ("noncovered employment'). Id at 2,
,1,111. The job was provided by a "Veterans' Administration program entitled Helmet
to Hard Hats." This program "award[s] to Iraqi[] Freedom Veterans" help with work
placement in the building industry. I d. After his employment with Electric Boat, Mr.
Lewis retired.
Mr. Lewis, a participant in the Plan, submitted a claim for pension benefits
that included a claim for early retirement benefits. ECF No. 1 at 2, ,1,18, 9. The Plan
approved his claim for pension benefits but postponed his request for early retirement
benefits because of his period ofnoncovered employment. Id. at 2, ,110.

Standard ofReview
The Court assumes the factual allegations in the Complaint as true for
purposes of this motion. Alnzda v. Seal'S, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.
2002). The complaining party must include "factual content [if it wants] the court to
draw a reasonable inference" in the pleader's favor. Katz v. Pe1'Shing, LLC, 672 F.3d
64, 72-73 (1st Cir. 2012).
If an ERISA Plan delegates to the Plan administrator the discretion to construe
the Plan and determine eligibility for benefits under its provisions-as it does here-a
Court must uphold a decision made under the Plan unless it was "arbitrary,
capricious, or an abuse of discretion." Niebauer v. Crane & Co., 783 F.3d 914, 922-23
(1st Cir. 2015). The central question under the arbitrary and capricious standard is
whether the decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. See,

2

e.g., McDonough v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 783 F.3d 374, 379 (1st Cir. 2015). "[T]he
question is not which side is right," but whether the Appeals Committee's "decision
was reasonable based on the record before it." Niebauw; 783 F.3d at 928.
The Court may consider the contents of documents alleged in a complaint for
purposes of a motion to dismiss without converting the motion to one for summary
judgment when the documents are central to a plaintiffs claims and a plaintiff
sufficiently refers to them in the complaint. See Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st
Cir. 1993) (recognizing the propriety of considering materials outside the complaint,
"for documents central to the plaintiffs' claim" and "for documents sufficiently
referred to in the complaint").

Analysis
The Plan may impose a delay on the start elate for early retirement of a Plan
participant in some cases. See Section 5.06(b) of the Plan. a One of those instances
occurs if the Plan participant had worked in noncoverecl employment. The Plan
contended that Mr. Lewis' period of noncoverecl employment-his time working at
Electric Boat"-requirecl them to delay his early retirement.

3

Section 5.06(b)(l) of the Plan document governs a Delayed Early Retirement

Date.
Except as provided for in paragraph (6) below, for every calendar quarter
in which a Participant or Employee, or former Participant or Employee
performs at least one hour of employment on or after September 1, 1988
in the Sheet Metal Industry that is not covered by a collective bargaining
agreement between the Union and the employer, the early retirement
elate of said Participant or Employee, or former Participant or Employee
will be delayed six (6) months.
4

Both parties agree that Mr. Lewis' employment at Electric Boat was
noncovered employment.
3

Mr. Lewis first alleges that, although his employment with Electric Boat was
not under a CBA, his employment was a "Federal benefit" to a veteran, which "is an
exception and/or should be an exception to the standard exclusionary language
contained in the plan document." ECF No.

1 at 3, ,117.

Mr. Lewis alleges that he "is

entitled to early retirement benefits and that said benefits should not be postponed."

Id. at 3,

,120.

Referring to the disposition of his appeal by the Appeals Committee,

[Mr. Lewis] alleges that the Plan "wrongfully denied [Mr. Lewis] benefits and
wrongfully postponed Mr. Lewis' receipt of pension benefits." I d. at 4,

~21.

The problem with !VIr. Lewis's first argument is that he cites no such exception
in the Plan documents-because none exist. Mr. Lewis' argument boils down to a
theory that the Plan should have recognized such an exception to the requirement of
a delay period imposed on his early retirement benefits because this noncovered
employment was sponsored for veterans. 5 Although a laudable program, neither the
Plan documents nor the ERISA law allows the Plan to disregard the explicit
provisions of the Plan because the participant is a veteran and his employment "is a
Federal benefit."

Id. at 3,

,117.

The Plan thus cannot recognize the exception

requested by Mr. Lewis, and neither can this Court.

The Appeals Committee found that "there are no prov1swns in the Plan
Document ... that exempt employment originating from the 'Helmets to Hard Hats'
program from treatment as non·signatory employment. Accordingly, the Committee
determined that Mr. Lewis' Early Retirement Benefit is subject to the applicable
early retirement delays in accordance with Plan Document Section 5.06." ECF No.
12·2 at 138.
5

4

In his Complaint in this Court, Mr. Lewis offers a second rationale for why the
Plan and now the Court should not delay his retirement. Before his employment with
Electric Boat, Mr. Lewis was a member of the Union but remained unemployed for a
period of three years.

During this three·year period, the Union did not find

employment for Mr. Lewis under a Union's CBA. The Union provided other Union
members with employment with companies under the Union's CBA and Mr. Lewis
was qualified for employment, but the Union did not provide it to him.

lVIr. Lewis

argues that the Plan wrongfully denied him his early retirement benefits by ignoring
the fact that the Union did not provide covered employment that would have entitled
him to nol1'delayed early retirement benefits.
The problem with Mr. Lewis' newest rationale rs that the Union's alleged
failure to find him employment is not a basis for not following the unambiguous
language of the Plan documents. lVIr. Lewis' complaint-that from 2008 to 2011, the
Union did not find him employment, needing him to take the veterans·sponsored
nonunion job at Electric Boat-is directed at the Union and has no relevance according
to the Plan documents. There is no exception in the Plan documents for noncovered
work because the Union did not provide alternative employment.

Conclusion
The actions of the Appeals Committee were neither arbitrary nor capricious.
There are no plausible allegations that they abused their discretion. Tho Court
GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

John J. McConnell, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 7, 2019

6