Bennett v. Ecolab

Background

Plaintiffs Scott Bennett, Brad Wilde, and David Statton are retired former employees of Ecolab, Inc. and participants in the Ecolab Pension Plan (the Plan), a defined benefit pension plan. They sued individually and as proposed class representatives under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1053–1055, alleging that the Plan used an outdated 1971 Group Annuity Table (1971 Table) when converting single-life annuity (SLA) benefits — the default for unmarried participants — into joint-and-survivor annuity (JSA) benefits — the default for married participants.

A JSA pays benefits for the lifetimes of both a participant and a surviving spouse. Because JSAs potentially pay out over a longer period, plans must reduce the monthly amount; ERISA requires the resulting JSA to be "actuarially equivalent" to the SLA the participant would otherwise receive. See 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d)(1)(B). Actuarial equivalence depends on assumptions about interest rates and life expectancy (mortality). Plaintiffs contend the 1971 Table dramatically understates current life expectancy, causing the SLA-to-JSA reduction to be larger than ERISA permits and costing married participants money.

Bennett selected the 100% JSA and retired at age 55; his monthly benefit was reduced from $1,448.09 (SLA) to $1,323.55 (his current benefit, after applying the early-retirement factor). Wilde also selected the 100% JSA and retired at age 59; his monthly benefit was reduced from $5,952.53 to $5,032.86. Both Bennett and Wilde took advantage of the Plan's early retirement option, which subjects benefits to reduction of 1/280 for each month by which commencement precedes the participant's 62nd birthday. Statton, by contrast, retired at age 66 — past the Plan's normal retirement age of 65 — and selected the 50% JSA. He received no early-retirement subsidy.

Plaintiffs brought four counts: Count I (violation of the JSA requirements in 29 U.S.C. § 1055), Count II (violation of actuarial equivalence requirements in 29 U.S.C. § 1054), Count III (violation of ERISA's anti-forfeiture clause in 29 U.S.C. § 1053), and Count IV (breach of fiduciary duty).

Count II — Dismissed as to All Plaintiffs (Unopposed)

At the hearing, Plaintiffs conceded that 29 U.S.C. § 1054 does not apply to their claims. The court agreed and granted Ecolab's unopposed request to dismiss Count II with prejudice as to all three plaintiffs.

Counts I and III as to Bennett and Wilde — Dismissed for Lack of Standing (Rule 12(b)(1))

Ecolab challenged these counts through a factual attack under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Bennett and Wilde lacked Article III standing (the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have suffered a concrete, real injury) because, even under the assumptions Plaintiffs say the law requires, they would have received less money, not more.

The court applied the rule that "accrued benefits" under ERISA — the benefits protected by §§ 1053 and 1055 — are calculated at normal retirement age, not at actual (early) retirement age. See Atkins v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 967 F.2d 1197, 1201 (8th Cir. 1992). The Plan's early-retirement factor (a subsidized reduction of 0.7 for Bennett and a comparable factor for Wilde) is more generous than the minimum required by section 417(e) actuarial assumptions (a factor of approximately 0.4818 for Bennett). When both conversions — the early-retirement reduction and the SLA-to-JSA conversion — are performed using the legally required minimum section 417(e) assumptions, the resulting hypothetical benefit is lower than what Bennett and Wilde currently receive.

For Bennett: his current JSA is $1,323.55/month; the hypothetical amount under section 417(e) assumptions for both conversions would have been $932.21/month. For Wilde: his current JSA is $5,032.86/month; the hypothetical amount would have been $3,953.07/month. Because both plaintiffs receive more than the law's minimum, they suffered no injury in fact and lack standing.

The court rejected Plaintiffs' argument that this analysis is unfair because it allows Ecolab to offset a punitive JSA conversion factor with a generous early-retirement factor, effectively giving married participants less benefit from the early-retirement subsidy than unmarried participants. The court noted that Plaintiffs raised no marital-status discrimination claim and cited no binding authority requiring exact parity between married and unmarried retirees. Counts I and III were dismissed with prejudice as to Bennett and Wilde.

Count III as to Statton — Survived Dismissal

Statton did not retire early, so he never received the early-retirement subsidy that offset the outdated SLA-to-JSA conversion factor for Bennett and Wilde. The court held that Statton plausibly alleged a violation of ERISA's anti-forfeiture clause, 29 U.S.C. § 1053(a), which requires that an employee's right to his normal retirement benefit be nonforfeitable. While courts are split on whether § 1053 can be used to challenge outdated mortality tables in JSA conversions (the court cited conflicting district court decisions), the court did not need to resolve that split at the dismissal stage. Ecolab's motion to dismiss Count III as to Statton was denied.

Count I as to Statton — Survived Dismissal (Rule 12(b)(6))

Ecolab argued that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) failed to state a claim for Statton because it did not allege his specific monthly benefit amount or the amount he would receive under section 417(e) assumptions. The court found it could consider Statton's Benefit Calculation form (Sealed Exhibit E), which was submitted with Ecolab's motion and whose authenticity neither party disputed, because benefit election forms are materials embraced by or integral to ERISA complaints. That exhibit showed Statton's monthly benefit as $1,752.59. Plaintiffs' expert declaration further showed that Statton is receiving $75.36 less per month than he would under the section 417(e) assumptions. The court found that the SAC's general allegations — that the outdated SLA-to-JSA factor applied to all plaintiffs, including Statton — were sufficient to plausibly allege an ERISA violation, regardless of whether the starting SLA was calculated at age 65 or age 66. Ecolab's motion to dismiss Count I as to Statton was denied.

Count IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) — Dismissed as to All Plaintiffs (Time-Barred)

ERISA requires fiduciary-breach claims to be filed within six years of "the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation." 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)(A). The Supreme Court has characterized this as a statute of repose. Intel Corp. Inv. Pol'y Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. 178, 180 (2020).

Ecolab argued the last action constituting the breach was the date each plaintiff's benefits commenced: Bennett, December 1, 2014; Wilde, May 1, 2018; Statton, August 1, 2018. Plaintiffs argued the breach recurred each time the Plan was amended (e.g., when it adopted updated mortality tables for some but not all participants in 2020 or later) without remedying the alleged violation as to all participants.

The court agreed with Ecolab. Under Plaintiffs' theory, a breach would recur with every subsequent plan amendment that failed to fix the original problem — an interpretation that would render the six-year repose period virtually meaningless. The court held that a failure to remedy a prior breach is not itself a new breach that resets the limitations clock. See Phillips v. Alaska Hotel & Rest. Emps. Pension Fund, 944 F.2d 509, 523 (9th Cir. 1991); Midwestern Mach. Co. v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 392 F.3d 265, 270 (8th Cir. 2004).

Bennett's claim expired December 1, 2020; the original complaint was filed February 21, 2024 — nearly four years late. Because the original complaint was itself untimely, Wilde and Statton could not use the relation-back doctrine (which allows later-filed claims to be treated as filed on the date of an earlier, timely pleading) to save their claims. Wilde's own claim expired May 1, 2024, and he was added as a plaintiff on June 14, 2024 — more than a month after expiration. Statton's claim expired August 1, 2024, and he was added on July 16, 2025 — nearly a year after expiration. Count IV was dismissed with prejudice as to all three plaintiffs.

Disposition Summary

The court granted in part and denied in part Ecolab's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 118): - Counts I, II, and III as to Bennett and Wilde: dismissed with prejudice. - Count II as to Statton: dismissed with prejudice. - Count IV as to all plaintiffs: dismissed with prejudice. - The remainder of Ecolab's motion (Counts I and III as to Statton): denied.

The case continues as to Counts I and III for plaintiff Statton only.