Court Opinion

ID: 9478621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:53:26.205237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:31.502389
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I agree that plaintiff Clark’s submission of a written employment discrimination questionnaire constituted a charge under 29 U.S.C.A. § 626(d). I also agree that under Georgia law, O.G.C.A. § 9-3-22 provides the proper statute of limitations for violation of an employee’s rights under section 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1140. I write to concur specially in the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff Clark’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not preempted by section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144(a).
I emphasize that plaintiff’s complaint asserts only a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the termination of his employment. Any facts relating to the anticipated reduction of his pension or retirement benefits included by the plaintiff in Count III of his complaint are not relevant to his state tort claim. Otherwise, the claim would be preempted by section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144(a). Howard v. Parisian, Inc., 807 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir.1987) (holding that ERISA preempts state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the termination of benefits from an employee benefit plan). With the understanding that plaintiff’s state law claim does not relate in any way to the pension plan, I concur.