PBGC Proposal Links Timing of Guaranteed Benefits to Plan Shutdowns

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") released a proposed rule this morning that would amend PBGC's regulation on benefits payable in terminated single-employer plans by adding rules for phasing in PBGC-guaranteed pension benefits. The proposed amendments would implement Section 403 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which makes the phase-in period for guaranteed benefits contingent on the occurrence of an “unpredictable contingent event,” such as a plant shutdown. Under the proposed rule, PBGC-guaranteed benefits could begin no earlier than the date of a plant shutdown or other unpredictable contingent event. The public comment deadline for the proposed rule is May 10.

D.C. Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration in MTV "Real World" Litigation

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled today that a woman who appeared on an episode of MTV's "The Real World" may maintain her lawsuit in federal court and will not have to arbitrate her claims based on video footing the Defendants allegedly obtained without the Plaintiff's authorization while she was intoxicated. Although not an employment or benefits case, we think the case worth mentioning here as it involves the arbitrability of disputes in general, an issue that frequently arises in the employment law context (it is also worth mentioning because our firm represents the plaintiff in the case).

By way of background, the Plaintiff brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Viacom, Inc., MTV Networks, and Bunim-Murray Productions, based on her allegedly unauthorized appearance on MTV's "The Real World" reality television show. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged in Counts I and II of her Complaint, that Defendants invaded her privacy by portraying her in a false light and by disclosing private facts about her without her consent. In Count III, she alleged that Defendants intentionally caused her emotional distress by airing the episodes and outtakes and by continuing to disseminate the footage after she notified Defendants that the footage had caused her severe emotional distress. Lastly, in Count IV, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants negligently caused her emotional distress by airing the footage. With regards to Counts III and IV, the Plaintiff emphasized that Defendants knew or should have known that she was particularly susceptible to emotional distress because she stated in part of the footage Defendants obtained and aired on MTV's networks that she suffered from anxiety.

On May 12, 2010, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. The Defendants then filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Stay the Litigation. The Defendants argued that, prior to Defendants obtaining any video footage of Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had signed a release authorizing Defendants to use any video footage taken while Plaintiff was in the Real World house and that the Plaintiff agreed in the release to submit any disputes arising under the release to arbitration. The Defendants argued that the Federal Arbitration Act dictates that the dispute had to be decided in arbitration and not in federal court. The Plaintiff countered that the FAA also dictates that certain issues must be decided by the courts. The Plaintiff noted that Section 4 of the FAA, which was at issue in the case, provides that “[i]f the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof.” The Plaintiff argued that her intoxication placed the “making of the arbitration agreement” at issue and therefore the enforceability of the agreement was for the Court to decide (not surprisingly, the Defendants argued, on the other hand, that the case law compelled the conclusion that the intoxication challenge should be decided by the arbitrator in the first instance).

Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Plaintiff. The Court noted that the Plaintiff challenged the making of the Arbitration Agreement on the grounds of intoxication and that under relevant law, voluntary intoxication is a type of mental capacity defense that permits an individual to avoid a contract if she was so intoxicated at the time of formation that she could not understand the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Court concluded that because this mental capacity defense went to the formation, or the “making” of the Arbitration Agreement, under § 4 of the FAA it must be decided by this Court. Consequently, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Finally, the Court noted that the Defendants also sought, through their motion to compel and stay, summary judgment on Plaintiff’s intoxication defense, arguing that Plaintiff cannot bear her burden of proof. The Court noted that the had offered evidence suggesting that she was inebriated when she signed the Agreement and that the issue of whether Plaintiff was so intoxicated on the night of September 11, 2009, that she was incapable of understanding the terms of the Arbitration Agreement was thus a genuine issue of material fact is in dispute. Consequently, the Court concluded that summary judgment is not appropriate.

Stay tuned for more about this case.

Supreme Court Expands Retaliation Protection

The United States Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of protection from retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to cover associational retaliation. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 863 (January 24, 2011), the Court ruled that in certain situations, Title VII allows an employee who has not personally previously engaged in protected activity to bring a retaliation claim against an employer who has taken action an adverse employment action against that individual.

By way of background, Thompson and his fiancée were both employed by North American Stainless (“NAS”). NAS fired Thompson shortly after (approximately three weeks) Thompson’s fiancée filed an EEOC sex discrimination charge against NAS. Thompson then filed his own EEOC charge under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, claiming that NAS fired him in retaliation for his fiancée’s protected activity. Thompson subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment to NAS, finding that Title VII does not allow for third-party retaliation claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Thompson did not have a cause of action under Title VII because he had not personally engaged in statutorily protected activity, such as filing an EEOC charge.

After agreeing to entertain Thompson’s petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court addressed two issues. First, did NAS’s firing of Thompson constitute unlawful retaliation? And second, did Thompson have standing to maintain a cause of action under Title VII? In addressing the first issue, the Court looked to its decision in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 52 (2006), where it held that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits any action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Looking to the facts in Thompson’s case, the Court determined that it was “obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.” Thus, Title VII’s anti-alienation provision covered Thompson’s firing.

In addressing the second, more difficult question, of whether Thompson had standing to bring an action against NAS under Title VII, the Court applied the “zone of interests” test set forth in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1992). Under that test, an individual has standing if he or she falls within “the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statutory provisions whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint.” The Court held that Thompson fell within that zone because Title VII’s purpose is to protect employees from unlawful actions, and that hurting Thompson to punish his fiancée was such an unlawful act. Moreover, the Court found, Thompson was not an “accidental victim” or “collateral damage” in the case, “but to the contrary, injuring him was [NAS’s] means of harming [his fiancée].”

The Court declined to define the class of protected relationships entitled to coverage under Title VII’s anti-alienation provision, stating that “[w]e expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.” However, the Court emphasized that “the provision’s standard for judging harm must be objective” and not based on an individual’s subjective feelings.

Because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Thompson opens the door to “third party” or “associational” lawsuits against employers -- but does not provide precise guidance on what degree of action and what level of relationship will create potential liability -- employers must recognize the added risk of taking some action that may not only be viewed as retaliating against an employee engaging in protected activity, but also against others in some undefined level of relationship with that person. The Supreme Court has left it to the lower courts, at least for now, to define the class of protected relationships entitled to coverage.

b&e Partner Jason Ehrenberg to Teach Class on “Employment Law: Independent Contractors’ Rights”

Program Description
Avoid Classification Violations
The federal government has stepped up its enforcement of proper employee classification, and now misclassifying employees as independent contractors can mean hefty fines and back taxes for employers. Are you up to date on the legal definition of an employee versus independent contractor? Do you understand the independent contractor’s rights, as well as the employer’s wage/benefits advantage? Explore the fundamental legal issues of the new Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act and learn best practices for limiting employer liability in this strategic course. Register today!

* Determine how to properly classify workers as employees or independent contractors.
* Recognize the employer penalties associated with misclassifications.
* Understand the rights that independent contractors are entitled to.
* Learn best practices for limiting employer liability in regard to hiring independent contractors.

Who Should Attend
This timely course is designed for attorneys. It may also benefit in-house counsel, human resources directors and risk managers.

Course Content
* Independent Contractor or Employee?
* The Department of Labor’s “Misclassification Initiative”
* The Rights of Independent Contractors
* Independent Contractors and Benefits Issues
* Best Practices for Limiting Liability
* New Legislation
* Other Legal Questions Related to Independent Contractors

Agenda / Content Covered:
Session Time: 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM Eastern
Presenter: Jason H. Ehrenberg

* Independent Contractor or Employee?
* The Department of Labor’s “Misclassification Initiative”
* The Rights of Independent Contractors
* Independent Contractors and Benefits Issues
* Best Practices for Limiting Liability
* New Legislation
* Other Legal Questions Related to Independent Contractors


For more information and to register, cut and paste the following link into your web browser:

http://www.nbi-sems.com/SemTeleDetails.aspx/Employment-Law-Independent-Contractors-Rights/Teleconference/R-55904ER%7C?NavigationDataSource1=Rpp:25,Ro:50,Nrc:id-3-dynrank-disabled,Nra:pEventDate%2bpEventStartTime%2bStates%2bCredits%2bScope+of+Content%2bpLocationCity%2bpDescription%2bpProductId%2bpProductDescription%2bProductCode+%28HIDDEN%29%2bpAdditionalFormats%2bDivision,N:304

Supreme Court Hears "Employee-Relationship" Retaliation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this week in a case that could impact how courts and HR managers define "employee retaliation" under federal anti-discrimination laws. The facts underlying the case, Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, began approximately 13 years ago when Eric Thomspon was hired by North American Stainless (the "Company"). The Company hired Miriam Regalado three years later. The two Company employees soon entered into a relationship, and eventually were engaged to be married. In February 2003, Regalado sued the company, alleging gender discrimination. Three weeks after the Company became aware of Regalado's lawsuit, the Company fired Thompson. Thompson subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, arguing that he was wrongfully terminated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court dismissed his complaint, holding that Title VII doesn't permit claims based upon of third-party retaliation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually agreed to hear the case.

At oral argument, the Supreme Court appeared reluctant to extend its retaliation jurisprudence, and the protections of Title VII's retaliation provisions to such third-party relationships. "Put yourself in the shoes of an employer," said Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.. "You want to take an adverse employment action against Employee A. You think you have good grounds for doing that, but before you do it, you want to know whether you're potentially opening yourself up to a retaliation claim." He continued, noting the implausibility of opening up a claim of retaliation for every kind of employee relationship. "Does the employer have to keep a journal on the intimate or casual relationships between all of its employees, so that it knows what it's opening itself up to when it wants to take an action against someone?" The court also debated what kind of relationships would count—a spouse? A friend? A pal? "Can you help provide where the clear line is?" asked Justice Alito. "Does it include somebody who just has lunch in the cafeteria every day with the person who engaged in the protected conduct? Somebody who once dated the person who engaged in the protected conduct?" Thompson's counsel argued the relationship in this case was strong enough to warrant a claim of retaliation. "The reason the relationship is important in this case is because it tends to render plausible the argument that there's a causal connection between the adverse action visited on Thompson in this case." The Company's counsel maintained the line of reasoning that had defeated Thompson in the lower courts. It asserted that the court's previous rulings show that Title VII does not cover third-party employee retaliation, and that because Thompson did not engage in "protected conduct" (i.e. he himself allegedly had not discriminated against), he did not have standing to sue the Company.

Although the Supreme Court appears from its questioning at the oral argument to be reluctant to extend the protections of Title VII's retaliation provisions to Thompson in this case, the case would have far-ranging legal implications for employers and employees if Thompson were to prevail. If Thompson wins, employees who are fired could gain a legal foothold when arguing they were terminated because of retaliation for another employee's behavior.

Empire BCBS Sued Over Denial of Autism Coverage

Empire Blue Cross ("BCBS") has been sued in federal court in Michigan for allegedly denying health care coverage for autism treatment. Two Michigan residents filed a proposed class action against BCBS earlier this week contending that the insurer ERISA by systematically denying payment for certain treatments for autism. See Lorigan v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, E.D. Mich., No. 10-14842. The lawsuit alleges that BCBS violates ERISA each time it refuses to pay for “applied behavior analysis” ("ABA") received by autistic children insured by BCBS health plans. There have been previous attempts to bring ERISA class actions against BCBS in the past. The lawsuit also alleges that ABA treatment is a “scientifically valid, medically accepted, and mainstream treatment” for autism spectrum disorder, and that by refusing to pay for ABA treatment, Empire Blue Cross has violated the terms of its ERISA health insurance plans.

Other cases have challenged the same actions of other Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans. In March 2009, a federal court in Michigan denied a class certification motion in a health plan participant's case challenging Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's refusal to pay for ABA therapy. In another case dismissed earlier this year, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Inc. was also targeted in an ERISA class action over its refusal to pay for ABA treatment. The case was dismissed earlier this year by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

Supreme Court to Hear Wal-Mart Bias Case

The Supreme Court has agreed to entertain an appeal in what has been labeled the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The case, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, involves claims that Wal-Mart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars. The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 different stores in 170 job classifications, cannot possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate.

In April, an 11-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled by a 6-to-5 vote that the class action could go forward. Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the majority, said the company’s policies and treatment of women were similar enough that a single lawsuit was both efficient and appropriate. He added that the six women who represent the class, four of whom had left Wal-Mart, had claims typical of the other plaintiffs. The size of the proposed class was not an obstacle, Judge Susan P. Graber wrote in a concurrence. “If the employer had 500 female employees, I doubt that any of my colleagues would question the certification of such a class,” Judge Graber wrote. “Certification does not become an abuse of discretion merely because the class has 500,000 members.” That drew a sharp dissent from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. “Maybe there’d be no difference between 500 employees and 500,000 employees if they all had similar jobs, worked at the same half-billion square foot store and were supervised by the same managers,” he wrote. “But the half-million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female).” “They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit,” Judge Kozinski concluded. In a second dissent, Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said that allowing the case to go forward as a class action would prevent Wal-Mart from presenting tailored defenses to individual claims.