Fitzsimons v. New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of…

Background

Peter Fitzsimons, a retired Union member, participated in the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund and was covered by the Welfare Fund. Regina Ann Devlin Fitzsimons, Bernadette Eileen Fitzsimons, and Caitlin Patricia Fitzsimons were beneficiaries under the funds’ plans.

Fitzsimons alleged that, after a Union trial, he was found guilty of working as a carpenter for a non-union company. The first guilty verdict was vacated after an appeal, but the Union tried him again, found him guilty, expelled him, and fined him $50,000. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America later told Fitzsimons that the guilty verdicts were supported by the evidence.

The Pension Fund and Welfare Fund notified the plaintiffs on October 28, 2020, that Fitzsimons’s benefits were being terminated because he had worked for Nevco Contracting, Inc. The Pension Fund suspended his monthly pension until it recouped benefits paid during his employment and canceled a direct deposit for one month’s pension payment.

Claims and Motions

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for breach of fiduciary duty and denial of benefits. They also asserted claims against the Union under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), including claims based on Union discipline.

The Fund Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The Union separately moved to dismiss. Both defendants also asked the court to dismiss the claims with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could not bring those claims again in an amended complaint.

Court’s Analysis

ERISA fiduciary-duty claims. The court held that the complaint did not include enough factual allegations to state a claim that the Fund Defendants breached fiduciary duties. The allegations concerning Geiger were also conclusory—meaning they stated labels or conclusions without enough supporting facts. The court therefore granted the Fund Defendants’ motion to dismiss the ERISA Section 502(a)(3) claims.

Pension-benefit claims. The Pension Plan required a participant, spouse, or beneficiary to file an action within 365 days after notice of an adverse benefit determination on review. The court found that the 365-day period was not unreasonably short. Because the plaintiffs received notice on October 28, 2020, their deadline was October 28, 2021. They filed this action on December 29, 2021. The court therefore held that the ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) claims concerning the Pension Plan were time-barred.

Welfare-benefit claims. The court assumed, without deciding, that the welfare-plan claims were not time-barred because the plaintiffs had not appealed the adverse benefit determination and the plan’s limitations provision addressed a denial after an appeal. The court nevertheless ruled against the plaintiffs on the merits. The Welfare Plans gave the trustees discretion to interpret the plans and decide eligibility, so the court reviewed the decision under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Under that standard, a decision is overturned only if it lacks a reason, lacks substantial supporting evidence, or is legally wrong. The court held that the Fund Defendants’ interpretation—that Fitzsimons’s work was disqualifying employment—was supported by the plan language. The plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the benefit denial was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted dismissal of the Section 502(a)(1)(B) claims concerning the Welfare Plans.

LMRDA claims. The court deemed abandoned the claims under LMRDA Section 529 because Fitzsimons did not oppose the Union’s arguments concerning that provision. The court also deemed the claims brought by the three non-Union-member family members abandoned because the plaintiffs did not oppose the Union’s standing argument as to those claims.

The court addressed Fitzsimons’s claim under LMRDA Section 101(a)(5), which protects Union members from being fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined without specific written charges, reasonable time to prepare a defense, and a full and fair hearing. Fitzsimons argued that he had not received a full and fair hearing because the Union lacked evidence against him. The court found that the complaint itself described evidence presented at the Union trials. It held that a charging party need only provide some evidence supporting the charges and that the complaint did not show a breach of fundamental fairness. The court granted the Union’s motion to dismiss the LMRDA claims.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The plaintiffs did not request permission to amend their complaint. They had already amended once and were represented by counsel. The court declined to grant permission to amend the remaining claims.

The court dismissed the ERISA pension-plan claims with prejudice because they were time-barred. It also dismissed with prejudice the ERISA fiduciary-duty claims, the ERISA welfare-plan benefit claims, and Fitzsimons’s LMRDA claims. The order states that the Fund Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, the Union’s motion to dismiss was granted, all of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.