Opinion ID: 725049
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Explicit Reference

Text: 15 A reference to ERISA plans may be explicit without actually using the term ERISA plans. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Pataki, 63 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir.1995); see, e.g., District of Columbia v. Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. 125, 130, 113 S.Ct. 580, 583-84, 121 L.Ed.2d 513 (1992) (statute that specified the existing health coverage of the employee referred to ERISA plans and was preempted); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 59, 111 S.Ct. 403, 408, 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990) (same where statute specified [a]ny program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits); cf. Ingersoll-Rand v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 140, 111 S.Ct. 478, 483, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990) (state common-law cause of action was preempted where plaintiff must plead employer's desire to avoid contributing to, or paying benefits under, the employee's pension fund). 16 Even so, a state statute is not preempted by ERISA if it affect[s] employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law 'relates to' a plan. Shaw, 463 U.S. at 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2901 n. 21; see also Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. at 130 n. 1, 113 S.Ct. at 583 n. 1 (quoting Shaw ). [T]he Supreme Court has never found a statute to be preempted simply because the word ERISA (or its equivalent) appears in the text. NYS Health Maintenance Org. Conference v. Curiale, 64 F.3d 794, 800 (2d Cir.1995) (discussing Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade ); see Thiokol Corp. v. Roberts, 76 F.3d 751, 758 (6th Cir.1996) (When the Court strikes down a statute that 'refers to' ERISA or a covered plan, it does so not because of the reference per se ... [but] because that reference has a legal effect.), petition for cert. filed, 64 U.S.L.W. 3808 (U.S. May 23, 1996) (No. 95-1913). In order to trigger ERISA preemption, a statute must not merely mention or allude to an ERISA plan, but must also have some relationship to ERISA plans or affect[ ] ERISA plans in some manner. Curiale, 64 F.3d at 799-800 & n. 15; accord Thiokol, 76 F.3d at 756-61 ([S]tatutes that refer to ERISA, but have no effect on a covered plan, are not within the scope of the definition of relates to and, as such, are not pre-empted.); United Wire, Metal and Machine Health & Welfare Fund v. Morristown Memorial Hosp., 995 F.2d 1179, 1192 n. 6 (3d Cir.) ([F]or example, a state statute providing that 'no employer, including an ERISA plan, shall discriminate on grounds of race or gender' would not be preempted despite its reference to an ERISA plan.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 944, 114 S.Ct. 382, 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). 17 Does § 630 make explicit reference to ERISA plans? The relevant text of that statute provides: 18 The ten largest shareholders ... of every corporation ... no shares of which are listed on a national securities exchange or regularly quoted in an over-the-counter market by one or more members of a national or an affiliated securities association, shall jointly and severally be personally liable for all debts, wages or salaries due and owing to any of its laborers, servants or employees.... 19 N.Y.Bus.Corp.Law § 630(a) (emphasis added). 4 The statute defines wages or salaries as all compensation and benefits payable by an employer to or for the account of the employee for personal services rendered by such employee. These shall specifically include ... employer contributions to or payments of insurance or welfare benefits [and] employer contributions to pension or annuity funds.... Id. § 630(b). Although this state statute does not say ERISA plans in so many words, the references to insurance or welfare benefits and pension or annuity funds that are supported by employer contributions describe (or include) with sufficient specificity welfare benefit plans that are regulated under ERISA, and therefore make[ ] explicit reference to ERISA plans. Greenblatt, 68 F.3d at 574. 20 Moreover, § 630's reference to ERISA plans is no passing mention or allusion. See Curiale, 64 F.3d at 799-800 & n. 15. It is evident that the expanded remedy afforded by § 630 would affect[ ] ERISA plans, id. at 800, by assisting the collection of funds available for plan purposes; indeed, one element of Romney's cause of action here is the existence of the three ERISA plans that have suffered from Goodee Fashions' delinquencies. It makes no difference that § 630 assists rather than burdens ERISA plans. Congress' purpose in providing for preemption in ERISA § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), was to relieve employers from having to comply with differing regulatory requirements in differing States, Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9, 107 S.Ct. 2211, 2216, 96 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987), lest the burdens of such compliance introduce considerable inefficiencies ..., which might lead those employers with existing plans to reduce benefits, and those without such plans to refrain from adopting them, id. at 11, 107 S.Ct. at 2217. Thus, while § 630 would be salutary for plans that suffer a loss by reason of an employer's failure to contribute, this benefit would be achieved at a cost because, for stockholders of companies subject to § 630, personal liability may be a factor that militates against creating ERISA plans in the first place. 21 As the district court emphasized, Congress provided for a comprehensive set of remedies in ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 144, 111 S.Ct. at 485-86; Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 54, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1556-57, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). Yet ERISA nowhere provides for personal shareholder liability. See Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund v. Lollo, 35 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir.1994) (shareholders generally not liable under ERISA); Sasso v. Cervoni, 985 F.2d 49, 50 (2d Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 973, 113 S.Ct. 2964, 125 L.Ed.2d 664 (1993). By changing remedies, § 630 would alter the incentives for employers to create and maintain ERISA plans, and thereby would affect ERISA plans in ways that Congress did not intend. 22 In sum, § 630 makes explicit reference to ERISA plans, Greenblatt, 68 F.3d at 574, and significantly affects ERISA plans in some manner, Curiale, 64 F.3d at 800. Put another way, the effect of § 630 on ERISA plans is not so tenuous, remote or peripheral, Shaw, 463 U.S. at 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2901 n. 21, as to save § 630 from preemption. See also Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. at 130 n. 1, 113 S.Ct. at 583 n. 1. Therefore, we hold that § 630 relates to ERISA plans, and is preempted by ERISA.