Perlman v. General Electric
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-09823
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Perlman v. General Electric, Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all nine claims, allowing Perlman to seek permission to amend.
Carol Perlman’s ERISA and New York common-law claims against General Electric, GE Healthcare, H. Lawrence Culp, Jr., Peter Arduini, Frank Jimenez, Betty Larson, and John Does 1-10 were dismissed, while the opinion allowed her to seek permission to amend within the stated time.
What happened
In Perlman v. General Electric, Carol Perlman sued General Electric, GE Healthcare, and several individual managers. She claimed they failed to provide information about her retirement benefits and wrongly denied benefits and compensation connected to her earlier employment.
Perlman’s job was eliminated in 2003, and she was then rehired as a contractor. She learned in 2020 that she might qualify for a pension and contacted the plan, but she said she did not receive the requested records. She argued that the defendants’ concealment made her claims timely.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. He ruled that most claims were too late, that Perlman did not adequately plead concealment or diligence to extend the deadlines, and that her document claim failed because she did not allege a written request. The dismissal was without prejudice to a timely motion to amend.
The detailed version
- Perlman v. General Electric · No. 1:22-cv-09823
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 30, 2023
Background
Carol Perlman sued General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, H. Lawrence Culp, Jr., Peter Arduini, Frank Jimenez, Betty Larson, and John Does 1-10. She alleged that the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and New York common law by failing to provide information about benefits and by denying or withholding pension benefits, stock options, and other compensation.
Perlman worked for companies that later became part of GE Healthcare from 1994 to 2003. When her employee position was eliminated in 2003, she was immediately rehired as a contractor and continued working until December 2004. She alleged that she was not told about her pension, severance, stock options, or other compensation. In 2020, a former colleague told her she might qualify for a pension. Perlman then made telephone inquiries to the GE Healthcare Affiliate Plan and requested records, but the opinion states that she did not allege making a written request for plan documents.
The complaint asserted nine claims: three under ERISA, five under New York common law, and one claim alleging fraudulent concealment to extend the time limits for the common-law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were inadequately pleaded, time-barred, and, for some common-law claims, displaced by ERISA.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Perlman’s ERISA claim for benefits, Count Two, accrued in 2003 because she knew that her employee position had been eliminated and that she had been rehired as a contractor. Under the six-year limitations period the parties agreed applied, the claim expired in 2009. The court stated that even if the period began in 2004, it expired in late 2010.
The court also held that Perlman’s ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, Count Three, was untimely. The alleged failure to explain her benefits occurred in 2003 or, at the latest, during her work for the company in 2004, so the claim was barred by 2009 at the latest.
The court found Counts Four through Eight—common-law breach of fiduciary duty, quantum meruit, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation—untimely. The court concluded that Perlman’s allegations showed she was aware of the relevant compensation and employment events by 2003. It also noted that her common-law claims for benefits under the pension plan would separately be subject to dismissal under ERISA’s preemption provision, even if timely.
The court rejected Perlman’s argument that fraudulent concealment or equitable tolling extended the deadlines. It found that the complaint did not specifically identify an affirmative misrepresentation or later act intended to conceal an ERISA violation. The allegations that the defendants failed to provide records or arrange an informational meeting were not enough to show fraudulent intent. The court also found that the complaint did not allege that Perlman acted diligently during the many years after her employment ended.
Count Nine, the fraudulent-concealment claim, was dismissed because it did not provide an independent basis for relief; it merely sought to extend the limitations period for the common-law claims.
Finally, the court dismissed Count One, the ERISA claim alleging failure to provide plan documents. ERISA requires a participant to make a written request before the plan administrator’s duty to provide the documents arises. Perlman alleged telephone requests but did not allege that she sent a letter, email, or other written request.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The dismissal was without prejudice to Perlman’s right to move to file an amended complaint. The court stated that, absent a timely motion for an extension, any amended complaint was due two weeks from the decision; otherwise, the case would be closed with prejudice to filing an amended complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.