Mealey's (August 5, 2016, 12:54 PM EDT) -- PHILADELPHIA — A panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 2 affirmed the grant of summary judgment to General Motors Corp. in a lawsuit alleging that GM unlawfully circumvented the Employment Retirement Income Security Act and the Pension Protection Act with its denial of a woman’s Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) because the claims are time-barred and without merit (Marva Jane Richardson-Roy v. Abigail Johnson, et al., No. 15-1914, 3rd Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14051).
(Per curiam opinion available. Document #54-160810-044Z.)
The panel affirmed a ruling by U.S. Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware that Marva Jane Richardson-Roy’s claims were filed outside of Delaware’s one-year statute of limitations for employment disputes.
On March 10, 1994, Richardson-Roy and her husband, Howard, divorced after 33 years of marriage. At the time of the divorce, Howard Richardson Sr. was employed by GM. He retired four years later and elected to begin pension benefits, effective Aug. 1, 1998, under the GM Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan with survivor spouse coverage for his then-wife, Cheryl L. Richardson.
Obtains QDRO
Howard Richardson died Jan. 4, 2010. Cheryl Richardson’s surviving spouse benefits began the following month. On March 16, 2010, two months after Howard Richardson’s death, Richardson-Roy obtained a QDRO from the New Castle County, Del., Family Court identifying her as Howard Richardson’s former spouse and “alternative payee” and granting her a “separate interest” award as part of the property settlement in their divorce. Separate interest awards are designed to pay benefits to the ex-spouse for the duration of the ex-spouse’s life, even if the participant predeceases the ex-spouse.
Richardson-Roy submitted the QDRO to the plan administrator, Fidelity Investments, for review and qualification. GM had delegated authority to Fidelity Workplace Services LLC to determine whether domestic relation orders relating to the plan are actually qualified. On April 21, 2010, Fidelity advised Richardson-Roy in writing that it had determined that the QDRO could not be qualified, explaining that Howard Richardson’s benefit had terminated with his death and the post-retirement survivor annuity that had vested in Cheryl Richardson could not be reassigned.
Richardson-Roy sought reconsideration twice of Fidelity’s decision, arguing that the QDRO created a right to a dividend share of Howard Richardson’s benefit and that it was immaterial that he had remarried, elected joint and survivor benefits in favor of Cheryl Richardson and then died. On June 1, 2010, Fidelity replied for the third time, explaining again that Howard Richardson’s benefits could not be divided and assigned pursuant to the QDRO because his benefit interest terminated with his death.
Nothing happened for more than two years. On Jan. 17, 2013, Richardson-Foy renewed her correspondence with Fidelity, arguing that the QDRO was a “property settlement” that was not about death or survivor benefits. Fidelity responded that there was no QDRO on file with the plan at the time of Howard Richardson’s death, that his benefit rights ceased with his death, that although the plan did provide a survivor benefit, that benefit was vested in Cheryl Richardson and that there were no further benefits to be paid.
Civil Action
On March 24, 2014, almost four years after Fidelity’s original decision and more than a year after the last correspondence from Fidelity, Richardson-Roy filed a pro se civil action pursuant to ERISA in the Delaware federal court. GM moved for summary judgment, submitting the plan and the QDRO as exhibits and arguing that Richardson-Roy’s benefits claims was time-barred and meritless and that ERISA preempts claims for nonbenefit remedies. Judge Andrews on April 1, 2015, granted summary judgment to GM. Richardson-Roy appealed.
“In granting summary judgment to GM, the District Court properly held that Richardson-Roy’s ERISA claim was not timely filed and properly rejected her argument that there is no statute of limitations applicable to her claim,” the Third Circuit panel said. “The ERISA statute does not have its own statute of limitations for recovery of benefits, but federal courts are authorized to borrow the most analogous limitations period from the forum state when deciding whether a federal claim has been timely pursued.
“The one-year limitation period set forth under Delaware law for employment disputes, 10 Del. Code § 8111, is applicable to a claim for recovery of benefits under an ERISA plan.”
The panel said Richardson-Roy’s claim accrued either on April 21, 2010, when Fidelity first rejected it, or on May 4, 2010, or June 1, 2010, when Fidelity denied her request for reconsideration. Her complaint was not filed until almost three years after the likely deadline for suit, the panel said.
“Even if we were to hold that her claim accrued on Jan. 17, 2013, the date of Fidelity’s last letter reiterating that her claim was denied, her civil action would still be untimely by more than two months,” the panel said.
‘No Merit’
The panel said it also agreed with Judge Andrews that there is no merit to Richardson-Roy’s ERISA claim because Richardson-Roy waited until after Howard Richardson’s lifetime interest had already expired due to his death before she first sought an assignment of such interest, but by then, there was nothing left to assign. Because GM alone was the true defendant, the panel said Judge Andrews properly dismissed the other parties, including Fidelity and its agents and officers.
The Third Circuit panel was Circuit Judges Joseph A. Greenway Jr., Leonard I. Garth and Marjorie O. Rendell.
Richardson-Roy is pro se. GM is represented by Robyn L. Anderson of Lathrop & Gage in Kansas City, Mo.
(Additional documents available: Appellant brief. Document #54-160810-045B. Appellee brief. Document #54-160810-046B.)...