Perlman v. General Electric

Background

Carol Perlman alleged that General Electric (GE), its GE Healthcare subsidiary, and individual GE managers violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and New York common law. She claimed that, after her position was eliminated in 2003 and she was rehired as an independent contractor, defendants failed to tell her about her pension and other benefits. She also alleged that defendants failed to provide documents concerning the pension plan and wrongfully denied her benefits.

Perlman alleged that she learned in 2020 that she might qualify for a GE pension. She contacted GE and was told at different times that she might have either a three-year or five-year vesting requirement. She then requested her personnel file, which she said was needed to determine whether she had a special arrangement affecting her pension eligibility. The opinion states that Perlman and a former GE colleague sought the file, but that GE and GE Healthcare never provided it.

Perlman’s First Amended Complaint contained nine counts. Count One alleged that defendants violated ERISA by failing to provide plan documents. Counts Two and Three asserted ERISA claims based on the denial of benefits and alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Counts Four through Eight asserted New York common-law claims, and Count Nine alleged fraudulent concealment as a basis for extending the deadline for those claims.

Ruling on the Benefit-Denial Claims

The court held that Counts Two through Eight were untimely. It had previously determined, in an earlier round of this case, that the claims accrued in 2003 or 2004. The amended complaint did not add facts that changed that conclusion.

Perlman argued that equitable tolling—an extension of the filing deadline in exceptional circumstances—applied because GE failed to conduct an exit interview, allegedly recorded her departure as a voluntary resignation, and concealed her possible benefit entitlement. The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show the affirmative misrepresentations or active concealment needed for tolling. It also held that Perlman did not allege reasonable diligence during the more than decade-long period after her employment ended. The court therefore found Counts Two through Eight untimely.

The court dismissed Count Nine because it did not state an independent claim for relief; it only asserted that fraudulent concealment should apply to the common-law claims.

Ruling on the ERISA Document Claim

The court also dismissed Count One, which arose under ERISA § 104(b)(4). That provision requires a plan administrator to provide specified plan documents after a participant or beneficiary makes a written request.

The court gave two reasons for dismissing the claim. First, the amended complaint alleged that Perlman’s former colleague, Caroline Luscombe, made written requests on Perlman’s behalf, but it did not allege that Perlman herself made the required written request. Second, the court held that a personnel file was not the type of plan document covered by ERISA § 104(b)(4). The statute’s reference to other instruments was limited to documents explaining how the plan was established or operated, rather than all employment-related records held by the plan or employer.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for defendants, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case.