Opinion ID: 201737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entitlement to Benefits Under the Plans

Text: 8 Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly dismissed their claim of entitlement to plan benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1)(B), for lack of standing. See, e.g., Abraham v. Exxon Corp., 85 F.3d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir. 1996) (Whether an employee has standing as a `participant' depends, not on whether he is actually entitled to benefits, but on whether he has a colorable claim that he will prevail in a suit for benefits.). The district court made no reference in its decision to standing. Rather, based on the plan documents submitted by Defendants, the court concluded that by the terms of the plans, [P]laintiffs are not entitled to benefits because they [were] not paid directly by GTE, but instead [were] paid by temporary payroll agencies. Edes, 288 F.Supp.2d at 58 (footnote omitted). 4 9 Plaintiffs also insist that they may proceed with their claim because they were common-law employees of GTE by virtue of their full integrat[ion] in GTE's workforce. Whether or not this is so, the district court correctly concluded that [t]he fact that [P]laintiffs may be common law employees is not by itself enough to state a valid claim for benefits under ERISA. Edes, 288 F.Supp.2d at 58-59. In an opinion published several months after the district court rendered its decision, a panel of this circuit reached the same conclusion, stating that a plaintiff may have a plausible argument that he was a common law employee . . ., but it is the language of the Plan, not common law status, that controls. Kolling v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 347 F.3d 11, 14 (1st Cir.2003). 10 Plaintiffs' own complaint alleges, and the plan documents submitted by Defendants confirm, that GTE's ERISA plans explicitly exclude from participation employees who were not paid directly by GTE, without regard for their common-law employment status. 5 Plaintiffs further allege that they were in fact not paid directly by GTE, but by third-party payroll agencies. Because they can prove no set of facts to support [their] claim for benefits under the ERISA plans, Rockwell, 26 F.3d at 260, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). 11