Document: 493 U.S. 365 110 S.Ct. 680 107 L.Ed.2d 782 Curtis GUIDRY, Petitionerv.SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND et al. No. 88-1105. Argued Nov. 29, 1989. Decided Jan. 17, 1990. Syllabus Petitioner Guidry, a former official of respondent union and trustee one pension plans, pleaded guilty to embezzling funds from the in violation § 501(c) Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure Act 1959 (LMRDA). Since his employment had made him eligible for benefits he filed suit District Court against two plans when they determined that forfeited right as result criminal activity. The intervened, joined third plan party, stipulated with Guidry entry money judgment its favor. court rejected funds' contention benefits. It ruled, however, constructive trust union's favor should be imposed on Guidry's until was satisfied. Reading Employee Retirement Income Security 1974 (ERISA) pari materia with, inter alia, LMRDA—which seeks combat officials' corruption protect membership interests—the concluded narrow exception ERISA's prohibition assignment or alienation benefits, 206(d)(1), is appropriate where "the viability members' damaged by knavery official." Appeals affirmed. Relying ERISA 409(a)—which makes faithless fiduciary personally liable losses resulting breach subjects other equitable remedial relief—the 206(d)(1) did not preclude imposition trust, deeming it unlikely Congress intended ignore principles protecting individuals such consequences their misconduct. Held: violates Pp. 371-377. (a) remedy prohibited unless some general statutory ban applicable. Cf. Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 825, 836-837, 108 2182, 2188-2189, 100 836. P. 371-372. (b) unnecessary decide whether 409(a)'s provisions supersede 206(d)(1)'s bar, since has been found have breached any duty plans. Although actions may harmed members who were fund beneficiaries, convicted stealing only union, are distinct legal entities. 372-374. (c) Assuming LMRDA 501 authorizes officer duties, authorization does override anti-alienation provision. Contrary respondents' argument, will modified, impaired, superseded 514(d)'s saving clause if cannot used effectuate LMRDA's goals. A broad reading 514(d) would eviscerate 206(d)'s protections rendering inapplicable whenever creditor relied federal statute. statutes more persuasively reconciled holding determines what sort aggrieved party obtain while governs question collected through particular means. 374-376. (d) also inappropriate approve generalized identification exceptions bar task Congress, courts. An an antigarnishment rule especially problematic, restriction garnishment can defended view effectuation certain social policies sometimes takes precedence over desire do equity between parties. 376-377. 856 F.2d 1457, reversed remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined, all but Part II-C MARSHALL, joined. Eldon E. Silverman, Denver, Colo., petitioner. Joseph M. Goldhammer, respondents. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 union. obtained $275,000. United States Tenth Circuit affirmed judgment. contends (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001 seq. (1982 ed.).1 2 * From 1964 1981, petitioner chief executive Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 9 (Union). 1977 1981 Pension Fund. Petitioner's receive three funds.2 3 In Department Labor reviewed Union's internal accounting procedures. That review demonstrated embezzled substantial sums Union. See App. 20. This led petitioner's resignation. subsequent audit indicated $998,000 missing. Id., at 26. 1982, than $377,000 Union, (LMRDA), 73 536, 4 MARSHALL joins this opinion. ed.).3 began serving prison sentence. April 1984, still incarcerated, complaint Colorado, alleging wrongfully refused pay entitled.4 Union asserted six claims petitioner.5 On first five claims, $275,000 52-58. agreed litigate availability requested sixth claim. 58. 5 previously negotiated settlement 44-46.6 contended 47-50. alternative those that, paid rather Guidry. Ibid. 6 therefore confronted different views regarding disbursement him. argued forfeited. forfeited, so 7 claim 641 F.Supp. 360, 362 (Colo.1986). 203(a) ERISA, 1053(a) ed.) declares "[e]ach shall provide employee's normal retirement benefit nonforfeitable" employee meets age years service requirements. F.Supp., 361-362. noted decisions forfeitable even upon showing covered 362.7 8 concluded, contained 1056(d)(1) appeared recognize provision generally prohibits means collecting court, nevertheless, stated: "ERISA must read important labor legislation." 362. Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 136, 141 ed.), LMRDA, sought part officials interests membership. Viewing these together concluded: "In circumstances official, appropriate." 363. ordered payable held interest thereon 1457 (1988). could invoked dishonest whose injured beneficiaries plan. deemed "extremely [petitioner] misconduct." 1460. district court's [petitioner's] both accorded . law well within discretionary power defined common ERISA." 1461.8 10 Because Courts expressed divergent concerning provision,9 we granted certiorari, 492 904, 109 3212, 106 563 (1989). II 11 Both presumed erects Act. also, much, although dictum, 836 welfare (e.g., vacation) reaching conclusion, proscribes no comparable applies 836, S.Ct., 2188. reasoned "when adopting before chose impose limitation respect plans." 837, 2189 (emphasis original). restrictions apply consistent applicable administrative regulations,10 relevant legislative history,11 courts.12 consonant designed safeguard income.13 We see meaningful distinction writ case. 12 Appeals, use redress breaches proper," F.2d, 1460, owed itself. 409(a) 1109(a) provides "shall make good each breach, subject relief deem 1459. need Respondents contend due nature scheme, there exists continuing uncertainty how much stolen taken funds.14 clear, n. 3, supra. Moreover, fiduciary, Respondents' argument plays natural tendency blur distinctions related (since injury either hurt membership). Respondents, avoid fact here (Indeed, earlier stage litigation parties took inconsistent positions: forfeiture, retained placed trust). funds, themselves. our view, therefore, erred invoking provisions. B 13 Recognizing problem Appeals' approach, respondents, like rely principally LMRDA. Section 501(a), 501(a) states officers "occupy positions relation organization group" "to hold property solely members." 501(b), 501(b) provides, under conditions, private action recover damages secure organization."15 assume, without deciding, "other relief" authorize, circumstances, trust.16 14 point 1144(d) ed.). states: "Nothing title construed alter, amend, modify, invalidate, impair, regulation issued law." application otherwise available "modify, impair supersede" believe, refusal allow goals Were accept position, Such approach 206(d), decline adopt 514(d).17 15 elementary tenet construction "[w]here clear intention otherwise, specific statute controlled nullified one. ." Morton Mancari, 417 535, 550-551, 94 2474, 2482-2483, 41 290 (1974). believe congressional intent effectuated reference overriding express, directive alienation. obtain, means—a pension. C 16 Nor think exception—either malfeasance misconduct—to 206(d) reflects considered policy choice, decision stream income pensioners (and dependents, be, perhaps usually are, blameless), prevents others securing wrongs done them. If made, undertake task.18 17 As matter, courts loath announce requirements prohibitions unqualified text. creation exceptions, problematic context acts, definition, hinder collection lawful debt. little sense then refuse enforcement appears inequitable. attempting carve out swallow forced determine "especially" impracticability defining standard reinforces conclusion left Congress. 18 Understandably, distaste reach here. statute, clear. addition, above, malefactor often beneficiary 19 reversed, case remanded further proceedings opinion.19 20 ordered. "Each provided assigned alienated." addition Fund, National Fund Unions Councils provides: "Any person embezzles, steals, unlawfully willfully abstracts converts own use, another, moneys, securities, property, assets officer, employed, directly indirectly, fined $10,000 imprisoned years, both." alleged $577 per month $647.51 5. 32-33. second fifth state common-law theories conversion, fraud, restitution, negligence. 33-35. claim, set forth substantive ground relief. Rather, "must restrain enjoin Funds paying Plaintiff completion thereafter [the Union] whole losses." 35. $23,865 accrued 45. Under settlement, $3,865 (the remaining $20,000 go fund's insurer) resume monthly payments June 1985. 46. cited Fremont McGraw-Edison Co., 606 752 (CA7 1979), cert. denied, 445 951, 1599, 63 786 (1980); Winer Edison Brothers Stores Plan, 593 307 (CA8 1979); Vink SHV North America Holding Corp., 549 268 (SDNY 1982). alternative, 75% exempt pursuant 303 Consumer Credit Protection 82 163, 1673(a). failed comply procedural Colorado laws. 1463-1464. Compare Ellis Bank Jacksonville Irving Trust 466 (CA2 1986) (no misconduct); Products Corp. Detroit, 811 297 (CA6 1987) (same), dism'd, 485 1017, 1494, 99 879 (1988), St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. Cox, 550, 552 (CA11 1985) ("[G]arnishment undertaken satisfy liabilities arising misconduct toward employer constitutes non-alienability ERISA"). Crawford La Boucherie Bernard Ltd., 259 App.D.C. 279, 815 117 (recognizing defrauds plan), denied sub nom. Goldstein Crawford, 484 943, 328, 98 355 (1987). Treasury regulations tax purposes "a qualified anticipated, (either equity), alienated attachment, garnishment, levy, execution process." 26 CFR 1.401(a)-13(b)(1) permits "any voluntary revocable exceed percent payment." 206(d)(2), 1056(d)(2) Conference Report "For rule, levy assignment." H.R.Conf.Rep. 93-1280, p. 280 See, e.g., Products, supra; Bank, Tenneco Inc. First Virginia Tidewater, 698 688, 689-690 (CA4 1983). Even recognized assumed operates, proscribe Marine, 551-552; U.S.App.D.C., 283-284, 121-122. Social 49 620, 42 407 ed.); Railroad 47 438, 45 231m(a) ed., Supp. V); Civil Service 8346(a); Veterans' Benefits 38 3101(a) One ways checks payment clerical services. At oral attorney "Nobody really decided yet funds." Record 19, Pet. Cert. C-13. Counsel stated, bonds sources compensation don't Mr. anymore, do, does. way things shake out, bag. ones lost money. 501(c), convicted, establishes penalties embezzlement theft employee. terms, establish brought member duties "and governing board fail sue reasonable time after being organization." language certainly contemplates bring forum, expressly independent basis jurisdiction. reached 501. Building Material Dump Truck Drivers, 420 Traweek, 867 500, 506-507 (CA9 1989) action), Brotherhood Railway Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express Station Employees Orr, 95 LRRM 2701, 2702, WL 1661 (ED Tenn.1977) (union allege 501). resolve invoke 501(b). Uncertainty scope call into subject-matter jurisdiction Appeals. properly 502 allegedly §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) 1132(e) Indeed, clause. 603(a), 523(a) "except explicitly contrary, nothing take away entitled [any] Federal State." weighs supersedes express proscription example, 104(a) Equity 1433, 1056(d)(3) V), mandated "qualified domestic relations order." light disposition address

Category: 6