Ivey v. SCANA Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Dismiss. ( Amended Complaint due by 10/13/2016.) Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 9/29/2016. (jpet, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Donald L. Ivey,
Plaintiff,
vs.

SCANA Corporation, SCANA Services,
Inc., and the SCANA Corporation
Retirement Plan,

) Civil Action No.: 3:16-467-MGL-SVH
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
______________________________
On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff Donald L. Ivey, (“Plaintiff”), brought this discrimination in
employment action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 621, et seq, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, et
seq. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for all pretrial handling, including
review of the instant Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13), filed by Defendants on April 15, 2016.
Following briefing by the parties, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation,
(The Report), (ECF No. 17), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part and denied in
part: specifically, the Report recommends that this Court: (1) grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss
as to Plaintiff’s ADEA retaliation claim; (2) permit Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint
as to his claim alleging interference with benefits under ERISA; and (3) deny Defendants’ motion
to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s ADEA discrimination claim and claim for unlawful denial of benefits
under ERISA. Defendants submitted a timely Objection to the Report, (ECF No. 18), to which

Plaintiff replied. (ECF No. 19). The Court has reviewed all of these submissions, and the matter
is now ripe for decision.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of a timely filed Objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record
in this case, including, in particular, the Report and Defendants’ Objection. Defendants object,
primarily, to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff’s ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim for
denial of benefits be permitted to go forward and that, consequently, the SCANA Corporation
Retirement Plan, (“The Plan”), continue in this litigation as a Defendant. Defendants argue that
Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a § 502 (a)(1)(B) claim, insofar as Plaintiff does not allege
that he ever actually qualified under The Plan for the full benefit now sought.
Although Defendants’ larger position may ultimately prevail at the summary judgment stage,
upon review of the Complaint and the otherwise limited record before it, the Court does not find that,
in the words of Defendants, Plaintiff “admits that he did not qualify for benefits under the terms of
-2-

the plan.” (ECF No. 18 at p. 1). In a close determination, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
adequately averred that he was entitled to full benefits under the terms of The Plan. See, e.g. ECF
No. 1 at ¶ 31 (“On or about September 29, 2015, Plaintiff applied to SCANA and the Plan, asserting
that he was entitled to full retirement benefits.”). Moreover, the Court is inclined to agree with the
Magistrate Judge’s view that outright dismissal of the § 502 (a)(1)(B) claim (and outright dismissal
of The Plan as a defendant) at this early stage in the litigation prior to any discovery taking place
would be inappropriate, particularly in view of SCANA’s apparent dual role as both sponsor and
administrator of The Plan.
Wherefore, in view of all of the forgoing, the Court concurs with the reasoning of the
Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report and incorporates it herein by reference, (ECF No. 17),
overruling Defendants’ Objection. (ECF No. 18). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13),
is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendants’ motion
is granted as to Plaintiff’s ADEA retaliation claim and denied as to Plaintiff’s ADEA discrimination
claim and ERISA denial of benefits claim. Plaintiff will be permitted to amend the Complaint as
to his ERISA interference with benefits claim. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of entry of
this Order to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
September 29, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

-3-