Skip to main content

ERISA "Church Plan" Exemption Found to NOT Exist When Pension Plan Had Not Been Originally Established By a Church


Rollins v. Dignity Health - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  In the 1980's, the Sisters of Mercy Congregations established nonprofit hospital systems.  In 1986, the two systems were merged to form Catholic Healthcare West ("CHW").  Employees in the CHW system received pension benefits.  Starla Rollins ("Rollins") worked as a billing coordinator for San Bernardino Community Hospital which became affiliated with CHW and had adopted the pension plan. 

Rollins filed a putative class action on the grounds that Dignity Health did not qualify for a "church exemption" under the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and therefore had improperly maintained its pension plan in violation of ERISA.  Dignity Health acknowledged the plan did not comply with ERISA but stated that plan did not need to because it qualified for the "church plan" exemption.  The district court held that Dignity Health's pension plan was not established by a church, or by a convention or association of churches, and therefore did not qualify for a "church plan" exemption. 

Holding:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis of the issue with a nod to its belief that in order to qualify for the "church plan" exemption under subparagraph (C)(i) of ERISA, a plan must have been established by a church and maintained either by a church or by a principal-purpose organization.  

The Court acknowledged that there are two possible readings of subparagraph (C)(i).  Under the first interpretation, a plan need only be maintained by a principal-purpose organization to qualify for the "church plan" exemption.  Accordingly, under this viewpoint, a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies for the "church plan" exemption even if it was established by an organization other than a church.  As for the second interpretation, maintenance by a principal-purpose organization is the equivalent of maintenance by a church.  It then follows that under this reading, the "church plan" exemption requires the plan to be established by a church.

After considering the legislative history of ERISA and the language of subparagraph (C)(i), the Court held "the more natural reading" was that the "church plan" exemption required required that the pension plan actually be established by a church.

Judgment:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that the "church plan" exemption of ERISA applied only when the plan was established by a church. 

The Takeaway:  Last week, I had noted two writs that had been filed with the United States Supreme Court that dealt with similar facts and issues in regard to interpretation of the "church plan" exemption.  It looks like the Ninth Circuit has agreed with the interpretation adopted by both the Third and Seventh Circuits on this issue.  It is interesting to note in this case, the Ninth Circuit did not give the IRS ruling on this matter much weight.  (In 1983, the IRS had stated its opinion that pension plans could qualify for the "church plan" exemption if they were maintained by a church-affiliated principal-purpose organization.)  Of course, the IRS reached the opposite conclusion of the Ninth Circuit as a result of a different interpretation of ERISA.  

It would not surprise me if this case is also appealed to the Supreme Court as well.  Given that we have three different circuits that have reached the same conclusion on the "church plan" exemption, in conflict with what had been previously held for several decades, this case is one to keep an eye on. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Fletcher

Date:  July 26, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/RollinsDignity072616.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more