Ninth Circuit Clarifies Scope of MPPAA Entertainment Industry Exception

In Nevada Resort Ass’n-Int’l All. of Theatrical Stage Emps. & Moving Picture Mach. Operators of the US & Canada Loc. 720 Pension Tr. v. JB Viva Vegas, LP, No. 24-2791, —F.4th—-, 2026 WL 32577 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026), the Ninth Circuit held that the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act’s (“MPPAA”) entertainment industry exception does not impose any minimum threshold of entertainment work an employee must perform to be considered an “employee in the entertainment industry.” Because the statute’s text is unambiguous, the court reversed the district court’s judgment upholding withdrawal liability and remanded for further proceedings.

JB Viva Vegas produced the musical Jersey Boys in Las Vegas and contributed to the Local 720 Pension Trust on behalf of stagehands from 2008 until the production closed in 2016. After JB ceased contributions, the Trust assessed more than $900,000 in withdrawal liability under the MPPAA. JB challenged the assessment, asserting that it qualified for the entertainment industry exception, which exempts certain employers from withdrawal liability when their contributions are for temporary or project-based entertainment work and the plan “primarily covers employees in the entertainment industry.” 29 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(1).

Although Local 720 historically covered employees engaged primarily in theatrical and entertainment productions, the nature of covered work shifted over time as Las Vegas venues increasingly hosted conventions and trade shows. By 2016, fewer than half of plan participants earned a majority of their wages from entertainment work, though most continued to perform at least some entertainment-related duties. Relying on this shift, the Trust concluded that it no longer qualified as an entertainment plan and assessed withdrawal liability when Jersey Boys closed.

After a protracted arbitration and district court proceeding—during which the arbitrator initially ruled for JB, but later entered judgment for the Trust on remand—the district court affirmed the withdrawal liability assessment. Both the arbitrator and the district court reasoned that employees must earn more than half of their wages from entertainment work to be considered “employees in the entertainment industry.”

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Reviewing the statutory text de novo, the court held that the phrase “employees in the entertainment industry” contains no quantitative limitation on the amount of entertainment work an individual must perform. Unlike other MPPAA provisions, where Congress expressly used limiting terms such as “primarily,” “substantially all,” or “insubstantial,” Congress chose not to qualify the definition of an entertainment employee. The court concluded that an individual qualifies as an entertainment employee so long as they perform any amount of work in the entertainment industry.

The panel also rejected the Trust’s argument that a minimum-work requirement was necessary to avoid absurd results. The court emphasized the temporary and project-based nature of entertainment work and noted that adopting a wage-percentage threshold could exclude workers who perform substantial entertainment work simply because they perform slightly more non-entertainment work. Moreover, the court explained that other statutory requirements—such as the requirement that employer contributions be for entertainment work—already serve to limit the exception’s reach.

Because the majority of employees covered by the Trust performed at least some entertainment work, the Ninth Circuit held that the plan could qualify as one that “primarily covers employees in the entertainment industry.” The court therefore reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Trust and remanded for further proceedings, declining to resolve additional issues raised by the parties that had not been addressed below.