Opinion ID: 795275
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must meet the definition of employee under ERISA

Text: 124 Plaintiff's action for benefits arises under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables a benefit plan participant to enforce the substantive provisions of ERISA. The Act elsewhere defines participant as any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan . . . . § 1002(7). 125 Plaintiff does not allege that he has vested welfare benefits due to his status as a former employee of MTA in reference to his work with MTA prior to 1999. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he is a participant because he was an employee of MTA while under the CSA. Thus, Plaintiff's claim for benefits under ERISA can succeed only if he was [MTA's] `employee,' while under the CSA. The Supreme Court has held that to qualify as an employee for ERISA purposes, a plaintiff must meet the common law test for employee. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 320-321, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992). Only once Plaintiff has demonstrated that he meets the common law meaning of employee should this Court turn to whether Plaintiff was an employee as defined in the STD and LTD policies, as distinct from an employee under ERISA. 126