Fifth Circuit Finds State Law Claims for Underpaid Pension Benefits Preempted by ERISA

In Broussard v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, No. 24-30664, 2025 WL 754536 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025), a dispute alleging underpayment of pension benefits, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by ERISA. Broussard, a former employee of ExxonMobil, had filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court claiming breach of contract and violations of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act (LWPA) related to his pension and unpaid wages, including vacation and shift-differential pay. ExxonMobil removed the matter to federal court due to diversity and federal-question jurisdiction, where the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of ExxonMobil. Broussard appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The court’s decision focused on two primary claims made by Broussard: first, regarding the alleged underpayment of his pension benefits, and second, concerning the claim for shift-differential pay. Broussard argued that the $60,000 difference between his expected and received pension lump sum constituted a violation of state law. The district court held that his claim was preempted by ERISA after applying a two-pronged test to determine ERISA preemption, which considers whether the claim addresses an area of exclusive federal concern and affects the relationship among ERISA entities. Broussard’s claim satisfied both prongs as it related directly to his entitlement under ExxonMobil’s ERISA-regulated pension plan.

Broussard attempted to argue that his claim arose from an independent contract based on the predicted payout from an online pension calculator, which he described as a binding offer. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the nature of the entitlement claimed—additional pension benefits—fell squarely within ERISA’s preemptive scope. The court emphasized that ERISA preempts state-law claims that relate to any employee benefit plan, and since Broussard’s claim for additional pension funds derived from his status as a participant in the plan, it was preempted.

Regarding the shift-differential pay claim, Broussard contended that he was entitled to this pay retroactively from 2015, based on ExxonMobil’s October 2021 offer that applied retroactively to January 2021. However, the court found no evidence supporting his claim for retroactive pay beyond the specified period. Under the LWPA, only agreed-upon wages must be paid, and Broussard failed to demonstrate any agreement for shift-differential pay dating back to 2015. Consequently, the court upheld the summary judgment dismissing this claim.

In conclusion, the court affirmed the district court’s rulings, finding that ERISA preempted Broussard’s pension-related claim and that he lacked evidence to support his claim for additional shift-differential pay. This decision underscores the broad preemptive effect of ERISA on state-law claims related to employee benefit plans and reinforces the necessity for clear contractual agreements to support wage-related claims under state law.