Court Opinion

ID: 9481713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:29:06.008722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:31.479802
License: Public Domain

PECKHAM, Senior District Judge,
concurring:
I join the court’s opinion. I wish to emphasize, however, what I believe to be the narrowness of our holding that McKin-non, as executrix of her father’s estate, fails to qualify as a beneficiary.
Under the ERISA statute, a “beneficiary” is broadly defined to include “a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8). The record in this case was devoid of any indication that McKinnon had been designated to receive benefits. In particular, McKinnon had failed to show that she was a devisee under her father’s will. Thus, because the court today does not decide that such a person lacks standing to assert an anti-retaliation claim under § 1140, I concur.