N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C UR TIS F. LEE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. ING GR OEP, N.V., a

Dutc h e ntity ; R ELIASTAR

LIFE INSUR

A NC E C OM PANY, a M inne sota c orporation; ING EM PLOYEE B ENEFITS DISAB ILITY M ANAGEM ENT SER VIC ES, a M inne sota

c orporation; ING NOR TH AM ER IC A INSUR ANC E C ORPOR ATION, a

De la ware c orporation; ING INVESTM ENT M ANAGEM ENT, LLC , a De la ware lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny ; KIM B E R L Y SHATTUC K; GENER AL RE C ORPOR

ATION, a De la ware c o rpora tion, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15848 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00042-R OS
M EM O R ANDUM *

C UR TIS F. LEE, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. No. 14-15936 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00042-R OS



# FIL ED
JUL 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.ING NOR TH AM E R IC A INSUR ANC E C ORPOR ATION, a

De la ware c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, And GENER AL RE C ORPOR

ATION, a De la ware c o rpora tion; ING GROEP, N.V., a Dutc h e ntity ; RELIASTAR LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, a M inne sota c orporation; ING EM PLOYEE B ENEFITS DISAB ILITY M ANAGEM ENT SER

VIC ES, a M inne sota

c orporation; ING INVESTM E NT M ANAGEM ENT, LLC , a De la ware lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny ; KIM B E R LY SHATTUC K, De fe nda

nts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 9, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. C urtis Le e is a form e r e m ploy e e of ING Inve s tm e nt M ana ge m e nt, LLC . In 2008, Le e wa s dia gnose d with hep a titis C and c irrhosis of thelive r. Le e a pplie d for an d re c e ive d long te rm disa bility be ne fits, be ginning in Ja

nua ry 2009. Those
2long te rm

disa bility be ne fits we re te rm i na te d a s of De c e m

be r 2009. Le e did not
re turn to work, a

nd wa s fire d in June 2010. Le e the n file d this la wsuit a ga inst his form e r e m

p loy e r and va

rious insura

nc e c om pa n ie s, a lle ging, inte r alia , tha t his long te rm disa bility be ne fits we re wrongfully te rm inate d, a

nd tha t he wa s fire d in
re ta lia tion for e xe rc ising his rights unde r the Em ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc om e Se c urity Ac t of 1974. Se e 29 U.S.C . §§ 1132, 1140. The distric t c ourt gra

nte d
sum m ary judgm e nt to a ll de fe nda

nts on both of those

c la im s, a n d Le e now a

ppe a ls that de c ision. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a n d we a ffirm
. W he re , a s he re , an e m

ploy e e be ne fits pla

n give s a c la im s a dm inistra

tor disc re tion in m a k i ng c la im s de c isions, c ourts m ust re vie w those de c i sions for a n
a buse o f disc re tion. Abatie v . Alta He alth & LifeIns. C o. , 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba

nc ). Howe ve r, if the c la i m s a dm inistra tor is suffe ring from

a
c onflic t of inte re st, the a

buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd m ust be te m

pe re d with som e le ve l of ske ptic ism
. Id. at 967–968. Le e first a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in not te m

pe ring its re vie w with
e nough skeptic ism
. He the n a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in not finding tha

t the t e rm ination of his bene fits wa s a n a buse of disc re tion. W e ne e d not de c ide

1 W e a ddre ss ING North Am e ric a ’ s c ross-a ppe a l of the distric t

c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to Le e on his c la im for sta t utory pe na ltie s in a

publishe d opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this me m orandum disposition. 3whe the r the distric t c ourt should ha ve a pplie d m ore ske ptic ism , be c a use no m a tte r the l e ve l of ske ptic ism

a pplie d , the c la im s a dm inistra tor did not a

buse its disc re tion. The c la im s a d

m inistra tor told Le e tha

t if he sought disa

bility be ne fits be y ond De c e m b e r 13, 2009, hewould be re quire d to a tte nd a n IM E on De c e m

be r 29–30, 2009. Le e re fuse d to a

tte nd the IM E. Unde r the te rm s of Le e ’ s long te rm disa bility pla n, tha t re fusa l wa s a

suffic ie nt ba sis to te rm inate his be ne fits. W hile Le e now trie s to re c ha

ra c te riz e his re fusa l to a

tte nd the IM E a s a

re que st to
re sc he dule , Le e ’ s le tte r m a de it c le ar that he would not a gre e to a tte nd a
ne uropsy c hologic a l e va luation. Le e ha s c i te d no pla n la ngua ge that a llowe d him

to
m a ke suc h a

re fusa l . Give n this re fusa l, re ga rdle ss of the le ve l of ske ptic ism
a pplie d, the de c ision to term inate be ne fits wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion. As to Le e ’ s re t a lia

tory disc ha rge c la im , the distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to thede fe nda

nts be c a use the c la im

wa s file d outsidethe sta

tute of lim ita tions. Le e a c k

nowle dge s this fa c t, but a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in not a pply ing e quita

ble tolling or e quita

ble e stoppe l to his c la im . Sinc e the fa c ts he re are undispute d, we re vie w de novo whe t he r the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to
a pply the se doc trine s. Se e He nsle y v . Unite d State

s , 531 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th C ir. 2008). 4Equita ble tolling of a

sta tute of lim i tations is a

va ila b le for pe riods of tim e whe re “ a re a sona

ble pla intiff would not ha ve known of thee xiste nc e of a possible
c la im .” Santa Maria v . Pac . Be ll , 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th C ir. 2000), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

Soc op-Gonzale

z v . I.N .S. , 272 F.3d 1176, 1194–96 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba

nc ). Equita

ble e s toppe l, on the othe r hand, a pplie s whe n the de fe nda

nt ha s e nga g e d in som e kind of “ a ffirm a tive m i sc onduc t” tha t ha s c a use d the pla intiff to be una ble to file during the lim ita tions pe riod. S

oc op-Gonzale

z , 272 F.3d a

t 1184 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). Le e argue s tha

t he is e ntitle d to both e quita ble doc t rine s be c a use he did not know tha t he wa s disc ha

rge d be c a use of his e xe rc ise of his ER ISA rights until M ay 2011, whe n he re c e ive d a n inte rna l ING e m a il in disc ove ry . Le e be lie ve s this
e m a il shows a

re ta lia t ory m otive on ING’ s pa

rt, a nd wa s wrongfully

withhe ld from him . B ut Le e wa s a

ware tha t he ha d a “ possible ” c l a im

for re t a lia

tory disc ha rge be fore re c e iving tha

t e m a i l. W

he n ING first told Le e that he would not be a ble to
re turn to his old job, a

nd ING wa s not going to cre a te a pa rt-tim e job for him , Le e
re sponde d by

sa y i ng tha t this de c ision, on the he e ls of a le tte r Le e ha d just written
a bout ER ISA viola t ions in the

ha ndling of his disa

bility c la im , a ppe a re d to be
re ta lia tory .

5Le e argue s tha t his suspic ion of re t a lia

tion wa s not strong enough for him to file a c om pla int. B ut a pla intiff is not entitle d to e q uita ble tolling up until the

point he is c e rta in tha

t he wa s fire d in re ta lia

tion. Se e Santa Maria , 202 F.3d a t 1178. M ore o ve r, the suspic ious timing of ING’ s de c ision wa s suffic ie n t to a l low Le e to file a c om pla int. Se e K

imbro v . Atl. Ric h

fie ld, C o. , 889 F.2d 869, 881 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ [T] he tim i ng of a disc ha rge m ay in c e rta i n situa

t ions c re a te the infe re nc e of re p risa l.” ). Le e kne w he ha d a

possiblec l a im

for re t a lia

t ory disc ha rge e ve n be fore he
wa s fire d, a

nd nothing pre ve nte d him from filing a c om pla int onc e he wa s disc ha rge d. The distric t c ourt did not err in not a pply ing e q

uita ble tolling or
e quita ble e s toppe l to Le e ’ s c la im
. AFFIRM E D.

6Le e v . IN

G Groe p, N .V. , 14-15848, 14-15936 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , disse nting in pa rt: I write se pa

rate ly for two re a sons. First, in m y vie w, ING Inve stm e nt M an a g e m e nt did not e sta

blish a s a m a tte r of la

w tha t Le e kne w or re a sona

bly should ha ve known of a possiblec la im for re ta lia

tory disc ha

rge whe n ING fire d him
. Se e Santa Maria v . Pac . Be ll , 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th C ir. 2000), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

Soc op-Gonzale

z v . I.N .S. , 272 F.3d 1176, 1194–96 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba

nc ). Our c a s e la

w is c le ar that “ e q

uita ble tolling doe s not postpone the sta tute of lim ita

tions until the

e x iste nc e of a

c la im is a virtua l c e rta inty ,” id. , but
ne ithe r doe s it e xe m

pt a pa rty from c om ply ing with R

ule 11. B e c a

use R ule 11
re quire d Le e to ha

ve a re a sona

ble be lie f that his c la i m

ha d a “ sound ba sis” in fa c t be fore bringing suit, a

nd be c a use the re c ord supports Le e ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t he c ould not ha ve re a s ona

bly he ld suc h a

be lie f until ne arly

a y e ar a fte r he wa s disc ha

rge d, I would re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt. Golde n Eagle Distrib. C

orp. v . Burroughs C

orp. , 801 F.2d 1531, 1538 (9th C i r. 1986). Afte r Le e m i sse d ove r a

y e ar of work due to a

se rious m e dic a l c ondition, a nd
a fte r m onths of strong disa gre e m e n t be twe e n Le e and ING re ga rding ING’ s ha ndling of Le e ’ s LTD be ne fits c la im , Le e and ING e nte re d into a dia l ogue a

bout his re turn to work. And on Fe brua ry 26, 2010, ING wrote to Le e to c onfirm tha t it 

# FIL ED
JUL 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1a

uthoriz e d his re turn for lim ite d a nd m odifie d dutie s de pe nde nt only upon his doc tor’ s a pprova l. On April 9, Le e ’ s c ounse l wrote to ING to re ite ra te his
c ontinue d obje c tions to ING’ s tre a tm e nt of Le e ’ s LTD be ne fits c la im , a n d to propose a se ttle m e nt on tha

t c la im
. This le tte r thre a te ne d litiga tion a s a n
a lte rna tive to se ttle m e nt. Shortly the re a fte r, ING wrote to Le e and le t him know it no longe r ha d a

n ope n position for him . Le e ’ s c ounse l re sponde d on April 15 by noting tha

t ING’ s fa ilure to hold Le e ’ s job ope n ha d the “ a ppe aranc e of
re ta lia tion.” W h at Le e did not know, a nd c ould not ha

ve known until ove

r a y e ar late r, wa s tha

t a lthough the

pa rtie s we re disc u ssing Le e ’ s re turn, the re wa s a
se pa ra te inte rna l e ffort within ING aim e d at ke e ping him from re t urning to work— not be c a use of his phy sic a l c ondition— but be c a use of the “ high like lihood of his suing [ING] .” It a ppe ars the distric t c o urt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of ING be c a use it c onc lude d tha

t Le e ’ s c la im

for re t a lia

tory disc ha rge a c c rue d

whe n Le e ’ s April 15 le tte r artic ulate d tha t ING’ s a c tions ha d the “ a ppe ara nc e of re ta lia

t ion.” B ut a s the m a

jority and ING prope rly

re c o gniz e , the sta

tute of lim ita

tions c ould not have c o m m e nc e d at tha

t point be c a

use Le e ha d not y e t be e n disc ha rge d . Le e ’ s
re ta lia tory disc ha rge c la i m did not a c c rue until he wa s disc ha rge d on June 11, 2010. Se e Burre

y v . Pac . Gas & Ele c . C

o . , 159 F.3d 388, 397 (9th C ir. 1998). 2The m a jority argue s tha

t Le e is not e ntitle d to tolling be c a use Le e ’ s April 15, 2010 thre at to sue shows he wa s a ware of a “ p ossible ” c la im for re t a lia

t ory disc ha rge be fore he wa s e ve n fire d. B ut la wy e rs m a ke a ll m anne r of thre a ts whe n posturing for se ttle m e n t, a nd thre a te ning suit doe s not e sta blish tha t Le e wa s a

ware of, or re a sona

bly should ha

v e be e n a w are of, a ripe c la im

for re t a lia

t ory disc ha rge that would ha ve pa s se d R

u l e 11 m uste r. The sole ba s is the April 15 le tte r ide n tifie d for the “ a ppe aranc e of
re ta lia tion” wa s the c l ose tim i ng be twe e n ING’ s de c i sion to fill Le e ’ s position a nd the April 9 le tte r ING re c e ive d from Le e ’ s la wy e r. This ove rlooks tha t the thre a t of litiga tion c onc e rning the LTD be ne fits dispute ha d be e n ongoing for m o nths a

nd pre c e de d ING’ s a

uthoriz a tion for Le e to re t urn to work. Le e wa s a

highly
c om pe nsate d e xe c utive and the pa rtie s’ dispute riske d e nding his c a re e r. It is no surprise that c orre sponde nc e e xc ha nge d be twe e n the pa

rtie s’ la wy e rs wa s sprinkle d with thre a ts of litiga

tion. Ne ve rthe le ss, thre a t s a lone do not e sta blish a re a sona ble be lie f that Le e ’ s re ta l iatory disc ha rge c l a im ha d a “ s ound ba sis” in fa c t

a s re quire d by R ule 11. The m a

jority argue s Le e ha d notic e a s of April 15, but filing suit would ha ve be e n pre m a ture be c a

use a t tha t point Le e c o uld not e ve n sa tisfy R ule 11.

3It wa s not until M ay 9, 2011 tha

t Le e wa s put on notic e tha t he m ay have be e n disc ha

rge d for an im p rope r purpose . On tha

t da te , Le e re c e ive d through disc ove ry in se pa rate litiga tion a c opy of ING’ s M a

rc h 31, 2010 inte

rna l e m a il
a dvising a ga inst offe ring Le e a job be c a use he thre a t e ne d to sue ING. In othe r words, de spite ING’ s e xpre ssion in Februa ry 2010 tha

t Le e c ould re turn to work if his phy sic a l c ondition a llowe d him to, a nd be fore the pa

rtie s e xc ha

nge d
c orre sponde nc e in April, ING wa s inte rna lly disc u ssing not le tting Le e re turn for
re a s ons unre late d to his phy sic a l c ondition. Vie we d in the light m o st fa

vora ble to Le e , the e m a il sugge sts tha t Le e ’ s supe rvisors wa

nte d him to re t

urn to his job, but
an ongoing c onve rsa tion be t we e n the Hum an R e sourc e s De pa rtm e nt a nd in-house
c ounse l c a

u tione d a ga inst a llowing him to do so be c a use he wa s like ly

to sue . From the re c ord av a ila

ble to us, thee m a il produc e d on M ay 9, 2011 a ppe ars to be the first tim e Le e re a sona bly should ha

v e be e n a ware of a possible c la im

for
re ta lia tory disc ha rge . As suc h, the distric t c ourt e rre d by granting sum m ary judgm e nt on the ba s is tha t Le e ’ s suit wa s untim e l y . B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not c onside r whe the r an ything tha t oc c urre d be twe e n Le e ’ s pre -disc ha rge April 2010 thre a ts to sueand his M ay 9, 2011 re c e ipt of ING’ s inte rna l e m a il should have put Le e on notic e of his c la im , I would re m and to pe rm it the distric t c ourt to
m a ke this finding in the

first insta nc e . 4The se c ond re a son I write is tha t I fe ar the m a

jority ’ s holding is like ly

to prom pt pre m a ture la

wsuits. In the

future , la wy e rs will know tha

t disc ussion of a

n
e m ploy e r’ s e xposure to a

re t a lia tory disc ha

rge c la im m ay be use d a ga i nst the m

in a
sum m ary judgm e nt m otion sim

ila r to the one file d

in this c a se . La

wy e rs should not be forc e d to c hoose be twe e n z e a lously re pre se nting the i r c l ie nts a nd c om ply ing with R ule 11, but if forc e d to do so, c a utious la w y e rs will sure ly

e rr on the side of filing suit too soon.

5