Opinion ID: 4387662
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gramercy’s Claims Against the Fund

Text: Gramercy’s Second Amended Petition – which often treats the Fund and the Union as interchangeable – appears to seek two forms of relief as to the Fund: (1) a declaratory judgment that Gramercy is not an employer within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”) and (2) equitable estoppel to prevent the Fund from seeking withdrawal liability. The district court 2 dismissed all of Gramercy’s claims on the ground that it was bound to arbitrate according to the terms of the Job Site Agreement (“JSA”) and CBA. As the parties seem to agree, the district court erroneously concluded that Gramercy’s binding arbitration agreement with the Union also covered Gramercy’s dispute with the Fund. It does not. The Fund and the Union are distinct legal entities, and the Fund is not a party to the JSA, which is an agreement between Gramercy and the Union. As Gramercy itself alleges in its Second Amended Petition, the Fund’s arbitration demand arises under federal law – not the JSA. See App. at 151 (“The [Fund’s] Notice demanded payment of the alleged withdrawal liability and stated that ERISA required that any dispute with the [withdrawal liability] Notice be resolved through arbitration.”); see also id. at 152 (“The September 13 letter further stated that, because [the Fund] considered the July 27 correspondence a ‘Request for Review’ under ERISA section 4219(b)(2), [Gramercy] would have sixty (60) days from the date of the September 13 letter to dispute [the Fund’s withdrawal liability] determination through [ERISA] arbitration.”). On appeal, Gramercy nevertheless argues that its claims against the Fund are not subject to arbitration pursuant to federal law because Gramercy is not an employer within the meaning of ERISA as amended by the MPPAA. We disagree. Under the MPPAA, an employer is “a person who is obligated to contribute to a plan.” Div. 1181 A.T.U.-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund By Cordiello v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Educ., 910 F.3d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis removed). This obligation may arise: “‘(1) under one or more collective bargaining (or related) agreements, or (2) as a result of a duty under applicable labor-management relations law.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1392(a)). Gramercy quite clearly was obligated to contribute to the Fund pursuant to the JSA – an agreement related to collective bargaining. See App. at 101 (agreeing to “make contributions to the Welfare and Pension Funds”). As such, there can be no doubt that 3 Gramercy was an employer under the MPPAA at least at the time of the Meadowlands Project. Accordingly, Gramercy is subject to mandatory arbitration under the MPPAA, see 29 U.S.C. § 1401, where it may raise any defenses relating to withdrawal liability and challenge the amount assessed before an MPPAA arbitrator.