Document: 498 U.S. 133 111 S.Ct. 478 112 L.Ed.2d 474 INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Petitionerv.Perry McCLENDON. No. 89-1298. Argued Oct. 9, 1990. Decided Dec. 3, Syllabus After petitioner company fired respondent McClendon, he filed a wrongful discharge action under various state law tort and contract theories, alleging that principal reason for his termination was the company's desire to avoid contributing pension fund. The Texas court granted summary judgment, State Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling McClendon's employment terminable at will. Supreme reversed remanded trial, holding public policy required recognition an exception employment-at-will doctrine. Therefore, recovery would be permitted in if plaintiff could prove "the employer's or paying benefits employee's fund." In distinguishing federal cases similar claims pre-empted by Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA), reasoned McClendon seeking future lost wages, mental anguish, punitive damages rather than benefits. Held: ERISA's explicit language its structure purpose demonstrate congressional intent pre-empt common claim employee unlawfully discharged prevent attainment ERISA-covered plan. Pp. 137-145. (a) cause this case is expressly § 514(a) ERISA, which broadly declares statute supersedes all laws (including decisions having effect law) "relate to" any covered benefit order prevail on action, as formulated Court, must plead, trial find, ERISA plan exists employer had pension-defeating motive terminating employment. Because existence critical factor establishing liability, court's inquiry directed plan, judicially created "relate[s] Cf. Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 825, 828, 108 2182, 2184, 100 836. Id., 841, S.Ct., 2191, Fort Halifax Packing Co. Coyne, 482 1, 12, 23, 107 2211, 2217-18, 2223-24, 96 1 distinguished. arguing irrelevant because issue improper motive, misses point, analysis there simply no Similarly unavailing argument 514(c)(2)—which defines "State" include instrumentality purporting regulate terms conditions plans—causes only those affect terms, conditions, administration not focus decision. That misreads 514(c)(2) consequently misapprehends expanding general definition "include " instrumentalities whose actions might otherwise considered pre-emption purposes; render 514(a)'s superfluous, since Congress need have said "all" pre-empted; foreclosed Court's precedents, see Mackey, supra, n. 2, 829, 2185. Pre-emption here also supported goal ensuring uniformity law, allowing based like one subject plans sponsors conflicting substantive requirements developed courts each jurisdiction. 138-142. (b) it conflicts directly with action. falls squarely within 510 prohibits participant "for interfering [his] right . plan." However, itself does imply remedies absent "special features" warranting pre-emption. See, e.g., English General Electric Co., 496 72, 87, 110 2270, ----, 65. Such 'special featur[e]' form 502(a), authorizes civil enforce plan's gives district exclusive jurisdiction such actions, has been held remedy rights guaranteed including provided 510, Pilot Life Ins. Dedeaux, 481 41, 52, 54-55, 1549, 1555-56, 1556-57, 95 39. Thus, lower attempt distinguish purview without merit. Moreover, basis 502(a)'s limiting seek "pension benefits," clear relief requested well power courts; fact particular answer argument. 142-145. 779 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.1989), reversed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous respect Parts I II-B, Part II-A, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. Hollis T. Hurd, Pittsburgh, Pa., petitioner. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C. U.S., amicus curiae, support petitioner, special leave Court. John W. Tavormina, Houston, Tex., respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court.* This presents question whether 88 Stat. amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., pre-empts ERISA. 2 * Petitioner Ingersoll-Rand Company employed Perry salesman distributor construction equipment. 1981, after worked nine years eight months, him citing companywide reduction force. sued court, vested another four months making contributions did realize pursuant applicable regulations, CFR 2530.200b-4 (1990) (break-in-service regulation), already credited sufficient service vest 10-year requirement. sought compensatory theories; assert period discovery, moved for, obtained, judgment claims. 757 816 (1988). 3 5 4 decision, trial. majority notwithstanding traditional doctrine, imposes certain limitations upon at-will employees. Citing Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Title 110B (Vernon 1988 pamphlet), concluded interest protecting employees' interests plans." 69, 71 (1989). As noted "[t]he very passage demonstrates great significance attached income security retirement purposes." Ibid. Accordingly, recover established but distinguished present "not [was] instead anguish result discharge." 71, (emphasis original). divided courts, we certiorari, 494 1078, 1804, 935 (1990), now reverse. II "ERISA comprehensive designed promote employees their beneficiaries Shaw Delta Air Lines, 463 85, 90, 103 2890, 2896, 77 490 (1983). "The participation, funding, vesting plans. It sets uniform standards, rules concerning reporting, disclosure, fiduciary responsibility, both welfare 91, 2896 (citation omitted). part closely integrated regulatory system included safeguards preclude abuse "to completely secure expectations brought into being landmark reform legislation." S.Rep. 93-127, p. 36 (1973). Prominent among these are three provisions relevance case: 514(a), 1144(a), broad provision; 1140, proscribes interference protected ERISA; 1132(a), 'carefully integrated' enforcement scheme "is essential tools accomplishing stated purposes ERISA." 54, 1555, 39 (1987). 6 We decide provisions, singly combination, case. "[T]he pre- 7 Fitzgerald Codex Corp., 882 F.2d 586 (CA1 1989) (ERISA premised plans); Pane RCA 868 631 (CA3 (same); Sorosky Burroughs 826 794 (CA9 1987) (same). Accord, Conaway Eastern Associated Coal 178 W.Va. 164, 358 S.E.2d 423 (1986). Contra, K Mart Corp. Ponsock, Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987); Hovey Lutheran Medical Center, 516 F.Supp. 554 (EDNY 1981); Savodnik Korvettes, 488 822 1980). empted intent. 'The ultimate touchstone.' Allis-Chalmers Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 208, 105 1904, 1909-10, 85 206 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Malone White Motor 435 497, 504, 98 1185, 1189-90, 55 443 (1978)). To discern Congress' examine statutory statute. See FMC Holliday, 56, 403, 407, 356 (citing Shaw, 95, 2898-99). Regardless avenue follow—whether implied pre-emption—this cannot sustained. A. 8 Where, here, worded provision our task discerning considerably simplified. set forth provided: 9 "Except subsection section, subchapter III chapter shall supersede insofar they may hereafter relate described section 1003(a) title exempt 1003(b) title." 10 clause conspicuous breadth." 58, 407. Its "deliberately expansive" "designed 'establish regulation exclusively concern.' Life, 46, 1552 Alessi Raybestos-Manhattan, 451 523, 101 1895, 1906, 68 402 (1981)). key found words to." used sense, rejecting more limited made "applicable relating specific subjects 98, 2900-01. underscore expansively applied, equally defining "State law" pre-empted. "all laws, decisions, rules, other law." 514(c)(1), 1144(c)(1). 11 "A 'relates to' normal sense phrase, connection reference 96-97, 2900. Under "broad common-sense meaning," thereby pre-empted, even specifically plans, indirect. 47, 1552-53. 525, 1907. precluded consistent requirements. Metropolitan Massachusetts, 724, 739, 2380, 2388-89, 728 (1985). 12 Notwithstanding breadth, recognized limits clause. 836 (1988), State's garnishment statute, though applied collect judgments against participants. 2191. collection burden not, itself, compel plain payment severance benefits, normally fall require establishment maintenance ongoing 2217-18. 13 Neither dealing generally makes to, indeed functions irrespective of, Nor cost defending lawsuit mere administrative burden. Here, liability law. result, relates merely essence itself. 14 difficulty concluding here—a wrongfully terminated primarily under, fund—"relate[s] meaning therefore 15 "[W]e virtually taken 'specifically plans' 514(a)." statute's express so designed; consequently, facts slightly different principle same: on, "allows when proves S.W.2d, 71. prevail, 16 argues obligations. 17 narrower 514(c)(2), 1144(c)(2), provides: 18 term 'State' includes State, political subdivisions thereof, agency either, purports regulate, indirectly, subchapter." 19 514(c)(2)'s causes administration. Since items can here. 20 flaw purpose. 3(10), "any United States, District Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, Canal Zone." 1002(10). Section expands, restricts, agencies Had intended restrict pre-emptive surely done placing restriction adjunct while using phrase were construed urges, superfluous precedents foreclose Georgia excluded from clearly yet read restrictively. 21 conclusion understanding provision. ensure body law; minimize financial complying directives States between Federal Government. Otherwise, inefficiencies work detriment beneficiaries. 60, 408 Halifax, 10-11, 2216-17); 105, 25, 2904, 25. Allowing burdens unlike through 514(a). Particularly disruptive potential conflict foreseeable exercising powers, develop standards same conduct, requiring tailoring conduct peculiarities outcome fundamentally odds implement. B 22 Even case, ambit 23 "It unlawful person discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, discriminate beneficiary entitled attain- ment become ." 1140 added). 24 By protects participants motivated vesting. viewed crucial because, it, employers able circumvent promised pp. 35-36 (1973); H.R.Rep. 93-533, doubt prototypical kind cover 510. 25 scheme," however, detailed one, "does remedies." 2279, 65 (1990). 'we look features pre-emption.' Hillsborough County Automated Laboratories, 707, 719, 2371, 2378, 714 (1985)). 26 Of 502(a)—ERISA's mechanism. §§ 1132(a)(3), (e), provides pertinent part: 27 brought— 28 "(3) (A) enjoin act practice violates (B) obtain appropriate equitable (i) redress violations (ii) plan; 30 31 "(e)(1) Except (a)(1)(B) participant." (Emphasis added.) examined some length explained 502(a) 510: 32 represents careful balancing prompt fair settlement procedures encouraging formation choices reflected inclusion exclusion others undermined ERISA-plan free rejected six carefully finally enacted provide strong evidence intend authorize forgot incorporate expressly.' 1556 Massachusetts Mut. Russell, 473 134, 146, 3085, 3092, 87 33 us precisely 'warrant[s] pre-emption' English, 2279; Medical, 2378. legislative history force modeled 301 Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 156, 185." 1555-56; id., 1556-57 H.R.Conf.Rep. 93-1280, 327 (1974)). "Congress aware powerful LMRA displaced" state-law claims, "even purported unavailable provision." 55, 1557. Taylor, 1542, (1987), again drew parallel complete defense removal forum limitation imposed "well-pleaded complaint" rule. 64-67, 1546-48. 34 rely satisfied Unquestionably, violation enforced 502(a). Accordingly hold '[w]hen fairly assumed activities protected" "due regard enactment requires yield.' Lingle Norge Division Magic Chef, 399, 409, 8, 1877, 1883, 410 35 preceding discussion responds purview. Not vindicating 510-protected rights, benefits." provide. Consequently, 37 ordered. MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS join II-B opinion.

Category: 9