Opinion ID: 776632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Claims to Participant Status

Text: 22 Plaintiffs assert that even if their claims are not actionable under section 404(b) of ERISA, they may still bring an action under section 502(a) of that statute, which empowers participants in employee benefit plans to bring civil actions to recover benefits owed to them under the terms of the plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Here, plaintiffs claim to be participants in the Teamsters Plan or, at the very least, to have a sufficiently colorable claim to Teamster Plan benefits so as to confer participant status upon them. As the district court concluded, however, plaintiffs do not qualify as participants under ERISA, which defines the term as any employee or former employee of an employer ... who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such employer or members of such organization, or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive any such benefit. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has explained that [i]n order to establish that he or she `may become eligible' for benefits, a claimant must have a colorable claim that (1) he or she will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that (2) eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 117-18, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). Since we have already found that plaintiffs are not eligible for Teamster Plan benefits under the terms of the Merger Agreement (having had no contributions to the Teamsters Fund made on their behalf after December 1, 1976), it is clear that plaintiffs do not have a colorable claim to such benefits, and thus cannot be considered participants in the Teamsters Plan. 23 Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that because they are participants in the Brewery Plan, with vested rights to benefits thereunder, they are also participants in the Teamsters Fund by reason of its integration with the Brewery Fund on December 1, 1976. Although ERISA defines an employee pension benefit plan as any plan, fund, or program which is established to provide retirement income to employees, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2) (emphasis added), this definition provides no reason to ignore the fact that the Merger Agreement does not use the terms plan and fund interchangeably and clearly provides for the continuation of two separate employee benefit plans after the merger, namely, the Brewery Plan and the Teamsters Plan. Although the underlying funds were merged, the plans remained distinct, with separate terms and conditions. Because plaintiffs are not eligible for Teamster Plan benefits under the Merger Agreement, they are not participants in the Teamsters Plan, the terms of that Plan do not apply to them, and, therefore, they may not maintain an action under section 502(a) of ERISA to recover benefits due to them or to enforce their rights under the terms of the Teamsters Plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1). 24