Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Claims Due to Untimeliness

Perlman v. General Electric, et al., No. 24-514-CV, 2024 WL 4635235 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2024) (Before: Parker, Kahn, Circuit Judges, and Amon, District Judge).

Eighteen years after she left employment, Plaintiff-Appellant sued her former employer, General Electric, for denying her severance and pension benefits and for failing to provide her with plan documents in violation of ERISA and New York state common law. The district court found her claims to be untimely or not cognizable. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her ERISA claims to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the dismissal of her complaint, finding that her claim for benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) was untimely under the statute of limitations based on the most nearly analogous state statute of limitations. The court also found that there was no basis for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations or a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Lastly, the court found that Plaintiff’s ERISA § 104(b)(4) fails because she never made a written request for plan documents and her request for her personnel file does not trigger a claim for penalties under the statute.

Plaintiff filed her lawsuit in November 2022. With respect to Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under ERISA, the court noted that the statute of limitations is based on the most nearly analogous state statute, which is New York’s C.L.P.R. § 213. This statute provides a six-year limitations period. Plaintiff argued that her claims did not accrue until 2020, when she learned of her entitlement to benefits. General Electric made Plaintiff’s position an independent contractor in 2003, after it determined that her position was redundant. The court determined that Plaintiff’s claim for ERISA benefits accrued in 2003 when she knew that her employment status changed. Even if she failed to understand the importance of the change of her employment status, she left General Electric permanently in 2004 and should have known of the repudiation of her benefits at that time. The court agreed that Plaintiff’s circumstance did not warrant equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because she failed to take any measures to learn about her entitlement to benefits prior to 2020. With respect to Plaintiff’s ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim, the court found that it was also untimely under 29 U.S.C. § 1113, which requires suit after the earlier of (1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or (2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation. Here, the court found that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege a breach of fiduciary duty and did not allege when any such breach occurred. She also did not plead fraud or concealment with particularity.

With respect to Plaintiff’s ERISA § 104(b)(4) claim for failure to provide documents, the court found that this claim fails for two reasons. First, a Plan’s statutory obligation to provide documents is triggered upon the written request of any participant or beneficiary. Plaintiff did not allege that she made any requests for written documents herself. Second, Plaintiff did request her personnel file, but the court found that the personnel file is not covered under the statute. It does not constitute a document under which an ERISA plan is established or operated. For these reasons, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.