ERISA Preemption of Common Law Breach of Contract Claims in Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans: Hampers v. W.R. Grace Co.

ERISA Preemption of Common Law Breach of Contract Claims in Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans: Hampers v. W.R. Grace Co.

Introduction

The case of Constantine L. Hampers, M.D. v. W.R. Grace Co., Inc. addresses a critical question in employment and benefits law: whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts a common law breach of contract claim for lump sum damages when the alleged breach involves the exclusion of a former employee from an ERISA-regulated pension plan. Dr. Constantine Hampers, a co-founder of National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), filed a lawsuit against W.R. Grace & Company (Grace) and other defendants, alleging breach of contract for failing to enroll him in the NMC Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that ERISA preempted Hampers's state law claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling that ERISA preempted Hampers's state law breach of contract claims against Grace. Hampers sought inclusion in the NMC SERP, claiming that the 1991 employment agreement entitled him to participate in any future retirement benefits established by Grace, including the SERP. However, when Grace introduced the SERP in 1995, Hampers was excluded, leading to his lawsuit. The district court denied Hampers's request for a jury trial, determining that his state law claims were preempted by ERISA's comprehensive federal scheme governing employee benefits. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that Hampers's state law claim was an alternative enforcement mechanism to the exclusive remedies provided under ERISA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cites key ERISA preemption cases to support its rationale:

  • PILOT LIFE INS. CO. v. DEDEAUX, 481 U.S. 41 (1987): Established that ERISA's civil enforcement remedies are intended to be exclusive, preempting state law claims that seek alternative remedies.
  • INGERSOLL-RAND CO. v. McCLENDON, 498 U.S. 133 (1990): Emphasized that preemption under ERISA is determined by congressional intent, focusing on whether state actions "relate to" an ERISA plan.
  • TURNER v. FALLON COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN, INC., 127 F.3d 196 (1st Cir. 1997): Reinforced the principle that ERISA preempts state law claims that fall within its exclusive enforcement scheme.
  • SHAW v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., 463 U.S. 85 (1983): Highlighted the broad scope of ERISA preemption, mandating the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state regulations.
  • Greater Washington Bd. of Trade v. FMC Corp., 498 U.S. 52 (1990): Discussed the breadth of ERISA's preemptive reach, covering state laws that have any connection with ERISA-regulated plans.
  • ROSARIO-CORDERO v. CROWLEY TOWING TRANSP. CO., 46 F.3d 120 (1st Cir. 1995): Asserted that state laws may relate to ERISA plans even without direct conflict, thus falling under preemption.

Legal Reasoning

The court's analysis centered on ERISA's preemption clause, particularly section 514(a) of the Act, which stipulates that ERISA supersedes any and all state laws relating to employee benefit plans. The court evaluated whether Hampers's state law breach of contract claim "relates to" the NMC SERP, an ERISA-regulated plan. Drawing parallels to precedent cases, the court determined that:

  • The state law claim involved the same conduct as Hampers's ERISA-based claims—specifically, the administration and exclusion from the SERP.
  • The relief sought under state law was intrinsically tied to the benefits and administration of the SERP.
  • Hampers's damages were calculated based on benefits under the SERP, necessitating an interpretation of ERISA-regulated plan terms.
  • Grace acted in its capacity as an ERISA employer with authority over the SERP, making the breach of contract claim directly related to ERISA's governance.

Consequently, the court held that Hampers's state law claim constituted an alternative enforcement mechanism to ERISA's exclusive federal remedies, thereby warranting preemption.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the breadth of ERISA's preemptive scope over state law claims concerning employee benefit plans. It underscores that when state law claims are intertwined with ERISA-regulated plans—especially when they seek remedies related to the administration or benefits of such plans—they are likely to be preempted. For practitioners, this case serves as a pivotal reference when assessing the viability of pursuing state law remedies in disputes involving ERISA plans. It also highlights the necessity for employers and plan administrators to meticulously align their contractual agreements with ERISA's provisions to avoid unintended preemption issues.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)

ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established retirement and health plans in private industry. It aims to protect employees' benefits and ensure that plans are managed in the participants' best interests.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP)

A SERP is a type of non-qualified retirement plan intended to provide additional retirement benefits to a select group of executives or highly compensated employees, beyond what is offered in standard qualified plans. SERPs are not subject to many of the strict regulations that govern qualified plans under ERISA.

Preemption

Preemption refers to the invalidation of state laws that conflict with federal laws. Under ERISA, federal regulations can supersede state laws related to employee benefit plans, preventing the latter from imposing additional requirements or remedies.

Common Law Breach of Contract

This refers to a legal claim where one party alleges that another party failed to fulfill their obligations as outlined in a contractual agreement, leading to damages or other remedies.

Conclusion

The First Circuit's affirmation in Hampers v. W.R. Grace Co. solidifies the doctrine that ERISA's preemption extends to state law breach of contract claims when such claims are inherently connected to the administration or benefits of ERISA-regulated plans. This decision underscores the comprehensive nature of ERISA in governing employee benefit plans and restricts the avenues for state law remedies in such contexts. Employers and plan administrators must navigate ERISA's provisions meticulously to ensure compliance and mitigate risks of preemptive conflicts arising from state law claims.

Case Details

Year: 2000
Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Judge(s)

Kermit Victor Lipez

Attorney(S)

D. Lloyd Macdonald, with whom Andrew C. Glass and Kirkpatrick Lockhart, LLP were on brief for appellant. Michael R. Pontrelli, with whom Thomas Elkind, Lawrence M. Kraus, and Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C. were on brief for appellees.

Comments