Second Circuit Awards Lump Sum Pension Benefits to Former NBA Referee Terminated for Violating COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

In Mauer v. Pension Comm. of the Nat’l Basketball Ass’n Referees’ Pension Plan, et al., No. 24-1405-CV, 2025 WL 559107 (2d Cir. Feb. 20, 2025), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling in favor of Kenneth Mauer, a former NBA referee, in his lawsuit against the Pension Committee of the National Basketball Association Referees’ Pension Plan. The court’s decision affirms Mauer’s entitlement to a lump sum payment of his pension benefits after his employment was terminated due to non-compliance with the NBA’s COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Kenneth Mauer, a seasoned NBA referee, found himself at odds with the league after being terminated in 2022 for refusing to adhere to the NBA’s vaccination mandate. Following his termination, Mauer applied for his pension benefits, expecting a lump sum payment under the terms of the NBA Referees’ Pension Plan. However, the Pension Committee denied his application, arguing that Mauer had not clearly “attained a distribution event” as defined by the Plan, citing the potential for his reinstatement due to a pending lawsuit against the NBA.

Mauer, through his attorney, contested this decision, arguing that his termination was a clear “distribution event” under the Plan. He emphasized that his separate legal action only sought monetary relief, not reinstatement, thereby nullifying the Committee’s argument of potential rehiring.

After the Committee denied Mauer’s appeal, he sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court interpreted the term “termination of employment” in the Plan as unambiguous, aligning with its plain meaning of severing the employer-employee relationship. The Plan’s language did not support the Committee’s interpretation that potential future employment could negate a distribution event.

The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusions. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment, reinforcing that the unambiguous language of the Plan must be honored according to its plain meaning. Citing definitions from authoritative dictionaries, the court emphasized that “termination of employment” clearly refers to the end of the employment relationship without any conditionality on future possibilities.

The court rejected the Committee’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that Mauer’s assertion regarding the potential future reinstatement skirted ERISA’s exhaustion requirement because he did not raise that argument in the Committee’s internal review process. The Second Circuit explained that the ERISA exhaustion requirement only applies to claims and not issues and that Mauer effectively raised the unambiguous meaning of “termination” in his internal appeal to the Committee. On the other hand, the court agreed with Mauer that the Committee forfeited its argument about exhaustion by not raising it in the district court proceedings. Judgment of the district court is affirmed.