Opinion ID: 201737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lack of Written Plan Eligibility Criteria

Text: 40 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are in violation of ERISA § 402, 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1), which requires that [e]very employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument, because eligibility for participation in GTE ERISA plans cannot be determined without recourse to payroll lists that are not part of the plan documents themselves. The statutory requirement that plan terms be set forth in writing serves the purpose of ensur[ing] that participants know their rights and obligations under the plan, and to provide some degree of certainty in the administration of benefits. Fenton v. John Hancock Mut. Life. Ins. Co., 400 F.3d 83, 88-89 (1st Cir.2005) (citations omitted), petition for cert. filed, 2005 WL 1656497 (U.S. July 13, 2005) (No. 05-80) (presenting question whether district court properly considered summary plan descriptions in review of administrator's denial of benefits). Plaintiffs argue that the plans' arbitrary distinction between employees who are paid directly and those who are paid by third-party payroll agencies evades this requirement because it fails to establish objective criteria for determining plan eligibility. To the contrary, as the district court stated, the plan documents specify `objective criteria' for eligibility: whether or not employees are paid directly by GTE. Edes, 288 F.Supp.2d at 64. The plan documents thus provide adequate notice of participation rights based on an employee's readily discernable payroll status, and the district court properly held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a violation of ERISA § 402.