Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_03-cv-01086/USCOURTS-alnd-2_03-cv-01086-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN WAYNE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE BLACK & DECKE R

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 03-B-1086-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is presently pending before the court on defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’

Fees. (Doc. 24.) Defendant asks the court for $34,481.50 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29

U.S.C. § 1132(g). Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, and the

relevant law, the court is of the opinion that defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (doc.

24), is due to be denied.

Section 1132(g)(1) provides, “In any action under this subchapter . . . by a participant,

beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and

costs of action to either party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). Pursuant to the law of this Circuit,

the district court deciding a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees considers the five Iron Workers

factors:

(1) the degree of the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith; (2) the ability

of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees; (3) whether an

award of attorney’s fees against the opposing parties would deter other persons

acting under similar circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting

attorney’s fees sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA

FILED

 2005 Mar-29 AM 09:24

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 1 of 7
2

plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding ERISA itself; [and] (5)

the relative merits of the parties’ positions.

Wright v. Hanna Steel Corp, 270 F.3d 1336, 1344 (11th Cir. 2001)(citing, inter alia, Iron

Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir. 1980)). “No one of these factors

is necessarily decisive, and some may not be apropos in a given case, but together they are

the nuclei of concerns that a court should address.” Iron Workers, 624 F.2d at 1266, quoted

in Wright, 270 F.3d at 1345.

As set forth below, the court finds that consideration of the Iron Workers factors

compels denial of defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

A. PLAINTIFF’S DEGREE OF CULPABILITY OR BAD FAITH

The court finds that plaintiff has presented a colorable claim. The evidence is

undisputed that defendant sent plaintiff a letter that stated his “Monthly Pension Benefit” if

he took early retirement was $1,102.07. (Doc. 18, Ex. 1, ex. B at 0156.) However, after

plaintiff reached 62 years old, he “monthly pension benefit” actually paid by defendant was

$237.07. (Id. at 0151.) The court finds that plaintiff’s claim based on the reduction of his

monthly pension benefit was not taken in bad faith.

The court finds that plaintiff did not act in bad faith or with any degree of culpability.

With regard to plaintiff’s culpability, the court notes:

[C]ourts have found that the “culpability” of a losing plaintiff

“significantly differs” from that of a losing defendant: “A losing defendant

must have violated ERISA, thereby depriving plaintiffs of rights under a

pension plan and violating a Congressional mandate. A losing plaintiff, on the

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 2 of 7
1A “windfall” is defined as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.”

MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY << http://www.m-w.com/>>.

3

other hand, will not necessarily be found ‘culpable,’ but may be only in error

or unable to prove his case.”

Salovaara v. Eckert, 222 F.3d 19, 28 (2d Cir. 2000)(quoting Marquardt v. North Am. Car

Corp., 652 F.2d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 1981); other citations omitted)).

The court finds that this factor favors denial of defendant’s Motions for Attorneys’

Fees.

B. PLAINTIFF’S ABILITY TO SATISFY AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $34,481.50. (Doc. 24 at 1.) It

contends:

Black & Decker recognizes that Plaintiff’s ability to satisfy an award is

modest. Nonetheless, by electing the VRP [Voluntary Retirement Program],

Plaintiff received a windfall of over $46,000 in additional benefits and

continues to receive enhanced benefits, each month, under the VRP today.

Therefore, an award of all fees sought with this motion would still leave

Plaintiff with a net of more in pension benefits minus Black & Decker fees

than the pension benefits that he expected to receive when he retired (which

was before he learned of the VRP). As a result, this factor supports an award

of attorneys’ fees.

(Id. at 3-4 (footnote omitted).)

The court finds defendant’s argument that plaintiff has received a “windfall”1 of

$46,000 is mere sophistry. The $46,000 cannot be considered a “windfall” to plaintiff as

defendant and plaintiff agreed that plaintiff would received the additional income until age

62 in return for retiring and giving up his position with defendant, thereby losing his right

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 3 of 7
2The court notes, “A party’s ability personally to satisfy a fee award, especially that

of a plaintiff of limited means, has been held, in and of itself, to be an adequate basis for

denying a defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees” in an ERISA case. Marquardt, 652 F.2d

at 718-19 (citing Wooten v. New York Telephone Co., 485 F. Supp. 748, 762 (S.D. N.Y.

1980); Doe v. Mundy, 441 F. Supp. 447, 452 (E.D. Wis. 1977)); cf. Durrett v. Jenkins

Brickyard, Inc., 678 F.2d 911, 917 (11th Cir. 1982)(“a district court awarding attorney’s fees

to a prevailing Title VII defendant should consider . . . as a limiting factor, the plaintiff’s

financial resources”). 

4

to continue to earn wages during the same time period. Therefore, any argument that

plaintiff was given an additional, unexpected “gift” or “bonus” by defendant is without merit.

Plaintiff has presented evidence that he currently receives $1,137 in monthly benefits

from Social Security and his pension plan, less the cost of health insurance. Moreover,

plaintiff contends that he received less that $9,000 from his landscape business. The court

finds that plaintiff has presented evidence indicating that his yearly income is approximately

$23,000. The court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated his financial inability to pay

defendant’s requested $34,000 in attorneys’ fees.

The court finds that this factor favors denial of defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’

Fees.2

C. DETERRENCE TO OTHERS

As set forth, the court finds that plaintiff’s claim was, at least, colorable. Moreover,

the court finds that “the third [Iron Workers] factor likely is not merely neutral, but weighs

strongly against granting fees to the prevailing defendant.” See Salovaara, 222 F.3d at 31.

Indeed – 

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 4 of 7
5

Awarding fees in [a non frivolous case] would likely deter beneficiaries and

trustees from bringing suits in good faith for fear that they would be saddled

with their adversary’s fees in addition to their own in the event that they failed

to prevail; this, in turn, would undermine ERISA’s essential remedial purpose

of protecting beneficiaries of pension plans.”

Id. (citing Gibbs v. Gibbs, 210 F.3d 491, 505 (5th Cir.2000)). “Although an assessment of

attorneys’ fees against a plaintiff certainly would be a strong deterrent against bringing a

frivolous action, it generally is sufficient that plaintiff bears his own attorneys’ fees and costs

to deter institution of a frivolous or baseless suit.” Marquardt v. North Am. Car Corp. 652

F.2d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 1981).

Because plaintiff alleged a colorable claim, the court finds that this factor favors

denial of defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

D. DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE

Defendant contends – 

A judgment for Plaintiff would have been for payments of additional pension

benefits from the Black & Decker Pension Plan. While small compared to the

size of the plan, a judgment for Plaintiff would thus have had a detrimental

impact on all participants and beneficiaries. Moreover, Black & Decker’s

action that led to this lawsuit was following the plain language of the Plan

documents. Following the Pension Plan language is in the interests of all

participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan. Therefore, this factor

supports an award of attorneys’ fees.

(Doc. 24 at 4.) Plaintiff disagrees; he contends, “Although Plaintiff would have received

additional benefits out of the pension fund, Defendant’s decision to send misleading,

individualized information to its former employees in exchange for a broad release of claims

was to benefit the company, not the plan participants.” (Doc. 28 at 4.)

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 5 of 7
6

The court notes that the Seventh Circuit has held: 

[T]he benefit of the suit to all participants in an ERISA plan or the resolution

of a significant legal question under ERISA is . . . primarily relevant only to

whether plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs will have

added incentive to bring suits that benefit all plan beneficiaries and to enforce

the policies behind ERISA if their attorneys’ fees will be paid by defendants.

Of course, sometimes a defendant may establish an interpretation of ERISA

that clarifies the law or benefits ERISA plan beneficiaries, if not the plaintiff.

But, in general, the fourth factor is significant in determining the benefits

conferred in a suit brought by ERISA plaintiffs, rather than the benefits of

dismissing a meritless ERISA suit.

Marquardt, 652 F.2d at 721 (emphasis added). This court agrees.

Defendant’s defense of this action was not significant in either clarifying the law or

benefitting plan beneficiaries. Rather, it was significant only in establishing that plaintiff’s

interpretation of the benefits letter was contrary to the terms of the pension plan. Therefore,

the court finds that this is neutral and does not favor granting or denying defendant’s Motion

for Attorneys’ Fees.

E. RELATIVE MERITS OF PARTIES’ POSITIONS

For the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that defendant’s

position had substantial merit, and plaintiff’s position, while not completely devoid of merit,

was not sufficient to prevail. Therefore, the court finds the relative merits of defendant’s

position were greater than the relative merits of plaintiff’s position. 

The fact favors granting defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

CONCLUSION

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 6 of 7
3The court’s decision to deny defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees does not affect

defendant’s right to file a Bill of Costs and received payment of its costs, not including

attorneys’ fees, as set forth in the court’s Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment.

7

Based on consideration of all of the Iron Workers factors, as set forth above, the court

finds that consideration of the factors, in their entirety, weigh against granting defendant’s

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Therefore, defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (doc. 24),

is due to be denied.3

DONE this the 25th day of March, 2005.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:03-cv-01086-SLB Document 29 Filed 03/25/05 Page 7 of 7