Opinion ID: 671466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ERISA and Pre-emption

Text: 35 Section 1144(a) of ERISA states that the provisions of this subchapter ... 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) of this title.... 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(a). Arguing that its severance plan is an ERISA employee benefit plan, the Debtor asserts that ERISA pre-empts the application of common law and equitable doctrines. Thus, Momentum argues that the bankruptcy court was precluded from using equitable doctrines to estop the Debtor from administering its Plan in accordance with ERISA. This argument is frivolous. 36 The determinations made by the courts below did not supersede or interfere with the primacy of ERISA. ERISA does indeed supplant other law in the interpretation of the Plan and the determination of employee benefits under it. It does not follow that an employer is shielded from estoppel as a consequence of its own inequitable or misleading conduct. This court and the courts below have not interpreted the Plan under any laws other than the governing law. They have simply barred the Debtor in litigation from asserting otherwise lawful positions where the Debtor's prior misleading conduct would make such an assertion inequitable. See National Companies Health Benefit Plan v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Atlanta, 929 F.2d 1558, 1571-74 (11th Cir.1991) (equitable estoppel applies where employees relied on company representative's interpretation of pension plan).