Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
MARC FLAGG, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. 10-10984-WGY
ALI-MED, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
I. INTRODUCTION
jurisdiction.
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 15
II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
Id. Flagg states that he would not have worked for Ali-Med had
term, Flagg did not purchase any other medical insurance for his
family. Id.
1
It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of America’s
non-elderly population (161,700,000 people) were covered by
employment-based health insurance in 2006. William Pierron &
Paul Fronstin, ERISA Pre-emption: Implications for Health Reform
and Coverage, 314 Emp. Benefit Res. Inst. Issue Br. 9-10
(February 2008). Indeed, as of 2003, “[a]bout fifty million
private-sector employees, including a majority of year-round,
full-time workers, participate[d] in a retirement plan regulated
by ERISA.” James A. Wooten, The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974: A Political History 2 (2004).
2
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 15
ill), or at the end of the day when Flagg left work for home.
hours and being paid for time that he had not actually worked.
Flagg alleges that the real reason his employment was terminated
was because his wife, Lisa Flagg, was disabled with a “very
out for an extended period of time, had never fired anybody for
this kind of behavior, and did not warn Flagg about it. Id. ¶ 8.
The hearing officer found that Flagg’s behavior was not conscious
19.
B. Procedural Posture
3
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 4 of 15
4
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 5 of 15
privilege. Id.
A. Legal Standard
5
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 6 of 15
challenging the removal: (1) removal was not done within the
1-4, ECF No. 8; and (2) the Complaint does not assert any federal
any federal claims, only state statutory and common law claims.
Ali-Med does not dispute the state law nature of all five of
2
To advance its conflict preemption arguments, Ali-Med
necessarily and expressly acknowledges the state law nature of
Counts I and IV. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 7-8, 13-14.
6
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 7 of 15
6-8.
Lab. & Emp. L.J. 409, 413-16 (2008). As germane here, conflict
3
Under ERISA, “[v]irtually all state law remedies are
preempted but very few federal substitutes are provided.” Aetna
Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 222 (2004) (Ginsburg, J.,
concurring) (quoting DiFelice v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 346 F.3d
442, 456 (3d Cir. 2003) (Becker, J., concurring)).
7
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 8 of 15
will treat a complaint that on its face alleges only a state law
question jurisdiction.
certain exceptions, ERISA shall “supersede any and all state laws
4
Under our Constitution, “Congress may so completely
pre-empt a particular area that any civil complaint raising this
select group of claims is necessarily federal in character.”
Taylor, 481 U.S. at 63-64.
5
Given its ability to transform state law claims into
federal claims, the Supreme Court is “reluctant to find [this]
extraordinary pre-emptive power.” Taylor, 481 U.S. at 65.
8
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 9 of 15
completely preempted.
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 390 U.S. 557, 560 (1968), the
intent “to make causes of action within the scope of the civil
Taylor that section 502(a) can convert ordinary state law claims
9
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 10 of 15
where the Supreme Court stated along the same lines that “[s]ince
LMRA § 301 converts state causes of action into federal ones for
whether Flagg’s state law claims fall within the scope of section
6
Ali-Med argues that Count I (breach of contract) is
conflict preempted by ERISA inasmuch as it is directly “related
to” medical benefits. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 2. See
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 140 (1990) (“We
have no difficulty in concluding that . . . a claim that the
employer wrongfully terminated plaintiff primarily because of the
employer’s desires to avoid contributing to, or paying benefits
under, the employee's pension fund – ‘relate[s] to’ an
ERISA-covered plan within the meaning of § 514(a), and is
therefore preempted.”).
7
Ali-Med argues that Count IV (intentional infliction of
emotional distress) is preempted by ERISA because it is based on
the theory that Ali-Med terminated Flagg’s employment to avoid
paying medical benefits. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 13. See
Andrews-Clarke v. Travelers Ins. Co., 984 F. Supp. 49, 54 n.23
(D. Mass. 1997) (“Plaintiff’s claims for . . . negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, . . . unabashedly
seek relief for the denial of plan benefits, and are therefore
preempted.”).
10
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 11 of 15
514(a) of ERISA, this does not mean they are completely preempted
Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, 338 F.3d 366, 371
11
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 12 of 15
his plan [or] to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan.”
rights under any ERISA plan. See also Mot. Remand at 4 (“Flagg
processed.”).
8
Flagg only seeks monetary damages and not injunctions or
other equitable relief. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 27, 31, 34, 37. It is
well settled, however, that claims for compensatory or
consequential damages do not fall under the purview of “other
appropriate equitable relief” available to an ERISA plan
participant or beneficiary under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3). See
Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 255, 261 (1993).
12
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 13 of 15
under the family health plan. Yet, section 510 alone cannot
65.
various state law claims9 and federal claims under the Emergency
9
The state claims were for breach of contract, medical
malpractice, wrongful death, loss of parental and spousal
consortium, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection
laws. Andrews-Clarke, 984 F. Supp. at 52.
13
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 14 of 15
are different, id., and that even if the plaintiff had never
concludes that Flagg’s state law claims do not fall within the
preemption.
IV. CONCLUSION
14
Case 1:10-cv-10984-WGY Document 13 Filed 07/30/10 Page 15 of 15
in and for the County of Norfolk. The Court takes no action on,
SO ORDERED.
15