Ljubicic v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers

1

ANTE LJUBICIC, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, Defendant

Civil Action No. 21-1483 (CKK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 2, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Ante Ljubicic, who proceeds pro se, brings this action against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union (“IBEW”), claiming that IBEW wrongfully denied him a pension benefit. He also alleges that he was “fraudulently misled” by IBEW. Pending before the Court is IBEW's [19] Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on behalf of itself and IBEW's Pension Benefit Fund (“PBF”). IBEW argues that it reasonably determined that Plaintiff was ineligible for benefits and that Plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentation claim is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974” (“ERISA”).

Upon review of the pleadings,^[1] the relevant legal authority, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS IBEW's [19] Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses this case.

I. BACKGROUND

A. IBEW's Pension Benefit Fund

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union (“IBEW”) is a labor organization, which represents approximately 775,000 active members and retirees across “a wide variety of fields, including utilities, construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads, and government.” Def.'s S.J. Mot. at 2 ¶ 2. IBEW's Pension Benefit Fund (“PBF”) is a distinct legal entity that pays pension benefits to eligible IBEW members. Id. ¶ 3. PBF is “wholly funded by the dues of IBEW members and earnings thereon” and so is a “union-dues financed ‘employee pension benefit fund,' as defined [in] Section 3(2) of ERISA.” Id.

To be eligible for a “normal pension” from PBF, an applicant must have been a “member of the IBEW in continuous good standing with five (5) or more years immediately preceding his or her application, who has attained the age of sixty-five (65) years[.]” JA Doc. 6, PBF Summary Plan Description at 2. Furthermore, “[i]t is a condition for admission to pension benefits . . . that the member shall not perform any work of any kind coming under [IBEW's] jurisdiction either for compensation or gratis for anyone.” JA Doc. 2, IBEW Const. Article XI Pension Benefit Fund § 6(d), ECF No. 22-2.

When an IBEW member in good standing applies to receive his or her pension, PBF's plan administrator makes an “initial determination” of the applicant's eligibility. Def.'s S.J. Mot. at 3-4 ¶ 4; see also JA Doc. 6, PBF Summary Plan Description at 6-7. The current plan administrator is IBEW's International Secretary-Treasurer Kenneth Cooper (“IST Cooper”). Id. at 1. If the plan administrator determines that the applicant is ineligible for pension benefits then he or she must “inform the claimant of the determination in writing,” explain “the reasons in layman's terms with specific references to pertinent Plan provisions on which the determination is based,” describe “any additional material or information necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim” with an explanation of “why such material or information is necessary,” and “provide a description of the Plan's review procedures and the time limits applicable to such procedures, including a statement of the claimant's right to bring a civil action under ERISA Section 502(a).” Id. at 6-7.

A claimant may appeal the IST's denial of benefits to IBEW's International Executive Council (“IEC”). Id. at 7. The IBEW Constitution grants the IEC “discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits” and specifies that “the decisions of the [IEC]” regarding “cases of eligibility for, and computation of the amount of, benefits shall be final and binding[.]” JA Doc. 2, IBEW Const. Article XI Pension Benefit Fund § 6(h); see also JA Doc. 6, PBF Summary Plan Description at 12 (“The IEC is also granted discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits.”). On appeal to the IEC, the claimant is “given the opportunity to submit written comments, documents, records, and other information relating to the claim for benefits.” JA Doc. 6, PBF Summary Plan Description at 7. The IEC considers the appeal at its “next regularly scheduled meeting,” and must issue a “final decision in writing within five (5) days of the determination.” Id. For an adverse determination, the IEC must “provide the reasons and reference the Plan's provisions on which the adverse benefit determination is based” and notify the claimant “that he or she has the right to bring a civil action under ERISA Section 502(a).” Id.

B. Plaintiff's Applications for Pension Benefits

Plaintiff Ante Ljubicic became a member of IBEW in February 1979 and paid dues through February 2020. Def.'s S.J. Mot. at 1 ¶ 1; AR 2, 3; see also Compl. at 3. During this period, Plaintiff was an “A” member in continuous good standing. Def.'s S.J. Mot. at 1 ¶ 1; AR 4.

Plaintiff first applied for a “normal retirement pension from the IBEW Pension Benefit Fund (PBF) in December 2018.” See Def.'s S.J. Mot. at 4 ¶ 1; AR 52-53. Plaintiff indicated in his application that he had last “physically” worked in the “electrical industry” for North Shore Towers in June 1990. AR 52. He also indicated that he was “currently self-employed” as a mechanical contractor.” AR 52. The business address listed on his application was associated with “Plumbing & Piping Unlimited Contractor.” See AR 51. State records indicate that he held active “heating, piping, and cooling” contractor credentials. AR 45-47.

In a letter dated March 6, 2019, IST Cooper denied Plaintiff' application. AR 43. The denial letter explained that because Plaintiff was “currently self-employed as a mechanical contractor,” he was not eligible for pension benefits pursuant to Article XI, Section 6(d) of the IBEW Constitution, which states: “The member shall not perform any work of any kind coming under the IBEW's jurisdiction either for compensation or gratis for anyone.” AR 43. IST Cooper's denial letter further advised Plaintiff to contact PBF again “[o]nce you are completely retired from all work in the electrical industry.” AR 43.

IST Cooper's affidavit provides additional context for his determination that Plaintiff was not eligible for pension benefits when he first applied in late 2018. See Affidavit of International Secretary-Treasurer Kenneth W. Cooper (“Cooper Aff.”) ¶ 25, ECF No. 19-2. According to IST Cooper, a “mechanical contractor can be expected to install, maintain, and repair systems such as heating and cooling systems,” which are tasks involving “electrical calculations” such as “reading and interpreting electrical schematics; troubleshooting of the electrical powering systems, air handlers, pumps and condensing units and similar electrical connections; and the use of electrical tools such as multimeters.” Id. ¶ 17. He avers that this “type of work is routinely performed by IBEW members and is taught to Inside and Residential Wireman apprentices in IBEW apprenticeship programs nationwide.” Id. Because Plaintiff, at that time, held licenses as a “Heating, Piping & Cooling” contractor and as a “Plumbing & Piping” contractor, IST Cooper concluded that his work as a mechanical contractor fell within the scope of IBEW's jurisdiction, and so Plaintiff was not eligible for a PBF pension. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19.

Plaintiff re-applied for pension benefits in December 2019. AR 34-42. Plaintiff again indicated that he had last “physically” worked in the “electrical industry” for North Shore Towers in June 1990. AR 34. However, this time, he left blank the section on the application requesting information about whether he was “currently employed or self-employed,” including a “detailed description of the type of work being performed.” AR 35.

In a letter dated February 26, 2020, IST Cooper requested additional information regarding Plaintiff's employment status. AR 31. Specifically, IST Cooper asked Plaintiff to provide a “detailed description explaining [his] previous and current involvement with Plumbing & Piping Contractor Unlimited.”^[2] AR 31. IST Cooper indicated that Plaintiff's application would be “held in a pending status awaiting this information.” AR 31.

Plaintiff submitted two letters in response. In the first, dated February 28, 2020, Plaintiff explained that he had “not worked for any shop . . . associated with [the] electrical industry” since 1990, and that he had “never owned or had any professional electrical licensing.” AR 29. He indicated that he had “been self-employed” as a “one man shop getting involved in small carpentry and plumbing jobs,” but that he was “officially fully retired” as of February 5, 2020. AR 29. Plaintiff sent a second letter dated April 23, 2020, in which he repeated that he has never had “any professional licensing in the field associated with an electrical industry” and that he has not “work[ed] within [any] locally or nationally affiliated electrical industry shop under [IBEW] jurisdiction since July of 1990.” AR 28.

IST Cooper again determined that Plaintiff was ineligible for pension benefits, explaining in a letter dated August 21 2020 that he found Plaintiff's “current employment” to be “representative of work performed by IBEW electrical workers.” AR 26. As such, Plaintiff remained ineligible for benefits under Article XI, Section 6(d) of the IBEW Constitution-the same provision cited in IST Cooper's denial of Plaintiff's first application. AR 26. To reach this determination, IST Cooper considered “Plaintiff's membership records,” “his application for benefits,” “letters from Plaintiff and his former employer,” and “copies and reports of Plaintiff's professional licenses.” Cooper Aff. ¶ 25. IST Cooper again considered the fact that Pla...