Opinion ID: 4941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Principles of ERISA Pre-emption

Text: The central inquiry in determining whether a federal statute pre-empts state law is the intent of Congress. FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 111 S. Ct. 403, 407 (1990); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 208 (1985). In performing this analysis we begin with any statutory language that expresses an intent to pre-empt, but we look also to the purpose and structure of the statute as a whole. FMC Corp., 111 S. Ct. at 407; Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 111 S. Ct. 478, 482 (1990). ERISA contains an explicit pre-emption clause, which provides, in relevant part: 9 If the Corcorans could sue United on a negligence theory, it would appear that they could recover damages incurred in connection with the death of their unborn child. Danos, 402 So. 2d at 637. 15 Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a). . . . ERISA § 514(a).10 It is by now well-established that the deliberately expansive language of this clause, Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 42, 46 (1987), is a signal that it is be construed extremely broadly. See FMC Corp., 111 S. Ct. at 407 ([t]he pre-emption clause is conspicuous for its breadth); Ingersoll-Rand, 111 S. Ct. at 482.11 The key words 10 Statutory, decisional and all other forms of state law are included within the scope of the preemption clause. ERISA § 514(c)(1) (The term 'State law' includes all laws, decisions, rules, regulations, or other State action having the effect of law, of any State). Section 514(b)(2)(A) exempts certain state laws from pre-emption, but none of these exemptions is applicable here. 11 The legislative history indicates that Congress intended the preemption provision to be applied expansively. In Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983), the Court explained: The bill that became ERISA originally contained a limited pre-emption clause, applicable only to state laws relating to the specific subjects covered by ERISA. The Conference Committee rejected those provisions in favor of the present language, and indicated that section's pre-emptive scope was as broad as its language. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 383 (1974); S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1090, p. 383 (1974). 463 U.S. at 98. Senator Williams, one of ERISA's sponsors, remarked: It should be stressed that with the narrow exceptions specified in the bill, the substantive and enforcement provisions of the conference substitute are intended to preempt the field for Federal regulations, thus eliminating the threat of conflicting or inconsistent State and local regulation of employee benefit plans. This principle is intended to apply in its broadest sense to all actions of State or local governments, or any instrumentality thereof, which have the force or effect of law. 16 relate to are used in such a way as to expand pre-emption beyond state laws that relate to the specific subjects covered by ERISA, such as reporting, disclosure and fiduciary obligations. Id. at 482. Thus, state laws relate[] to employee benefit plans in a much broader sense -- whenever they have a connection with or reference to such a plan. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 (1983). This sweeping pre-emption of state law is consistent with Congress's decision to create a comprehensive, uniform federal scheme for the regulation of employee benefit plans. See Ingersoll-Rand, 111 S. Ct. at 482; Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 45-46. The most obvious class of pre-empted state laws are those that are specifically designed to affect ERISA-governed employee benefit plans. See Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 829-30 (1988) (statute explicitly barring garnishment of ERISA plan funds is pre-empted); Ingersoll-Rand, 111 S. Ct. at 483 (cause of action allowing recovery from employer when discharge is premised upon attempt to avoid contributing to pension plan is pre-empted). But a law is not saved from pre-emption merely because it does not target employee benefit plans. Indeed, much pre-emption litigation involves laws of general application which, when applied in particular settings, can be said to have a connection with or a reference to an ERISA plan. See Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 47-48 (common law 120 Cong. Rec. 29933 (1974). See also Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 46. 17 tort and contract causes of action seeking damages for improper processing of a claim for benefits under a disability plan are pre-empted); Shaw, 463 U.S. at 95-100 (statute interpreted by state court as prohibiting plans from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy is pre-empted); Christopher v. Mobil Oil Corp., 950 F.2d 1209, 1218 (5th Cir. 1992) (common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims that allege reliance on agreements or representations about the coverage of a plan are pre-empted), petition for cert. filed 60 U.S.L.W. 3829 (U.S. May 26, 1992) (No. 91-1881); Lee v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 894 F.2d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 1990) (same). On the other hand, the Court has recognized that not every conceivable cause of action that may be brought against an ERISA-covered plan is pre-empted. Some state actions may affect employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law 'relates to' the plan. Shaw, 463 U.S. at 100 n.21. Thus, run-of-themill state-law claims such as unpaid rent, failure to pay creditors, or even torts committed by an ERISA plan are not preempted, Mackey, 486 U.S. at 833 (discussing these types of claims in dicta).