Opinion ID: 172853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ms. Scruggs's Lawsuit

Text: On April 26, 2006, Scruggs brought this action under section 502(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1), to recover benefits allegedly owed to her under two employee benefits plans, ExxonMobil Pension Plan and ExxonMobil Savings Plan. The Plans moved for summary judgment, but the district court denied the motion, concluding that the plan administrator's decision was conclusory and did not adequately explain the grounds for its decision. Given that the plan administrator's decision failed to make adequate findings and explain the grounds for determination, the district court subsequently ordered a remand for the limited purpose of the plan administrator's de novo reconsideration of plaintiff's claim for benefits, based on the existing administrative record. (Aplt.App.214.) The court also allowed the parties to supplement the administrative record with the pertinent legally operative plan documents and any evidence that the parties specifically agreed to. On remand, the plan administrator once again denied Scruggs's claim. In an eleven-page letter, the administrator explained that Scruggs was not a covered employee eligible to participate in the Plans, because she was never on ExxonMobil's payroll. Alternatively, the administrator explained that she was excluded from participation in the Plans because she was a Special-Agreement Person as defined in the Plan documents. And, even if she was eligible to participate in the Plans, she had not accrued any benefits under the Plans. In sum, the plan administrator concluded that [f]undamentally, Ms. Scruggs' complaint is not with the administration of the Plans, but with the actions of the employer in not offering her a position on the payroll or establishing benefit plans to cover long-term contractors. ( Id. at 465.) Scruggs returned to federal court, filing an amended complaint in the district court, and both parties moved for summary judgment. On June 30, 2008, the district court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plans because Scruggs's claim was untimely. The court explained that because she knew or should have known that she was classified by ExxonMobil as a contract employee as to whom ExxonMobil repudiated any entitlement to . . . ERISA benefits more than five years before she filed this claim, Scruggs's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ( Id. at 550.) Alternatively, the court concluded that Plan Administrator's decision denying benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. This appeal by Scruggs followed.