Belade v. Itt Corp., 909 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Belade v. Itt Corp., 909 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thompson v. Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (ca7, 2011-06-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
7th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The doctrine “does not bring design decisions within ERISA.” Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990); see also Rasenack v. AIG Life Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Engler v. Cendant Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 2006 · confidence medium
“ERISA permits employers to wear ‘two hats,’ and ... they assume fiduciary status ‘only when and to the extent’ that they function in their capacity as plan administrators, not when they conduct business that is not regulated by ERISA.” Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990); (quoting Amato v. Western Union Int’l, 596 F.Supp. 963, 968 (S.D.N.Y.1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.
D. Kan. · 2005 · confidence medium
“ERISA permits employers to wear two hats, and ... they assume fiduciary status only when and to the extent that they function in their capacity as plan administrators, not when they conduct business that is not regulated by ERISA.” Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cobell v. Norton
D.D.C. · 2002 · confidence medium
Defined Benefit Pension Plan, 24 F.3d 1491, 1497-99 (3d Cir.1994) (stating that the determination of compensation for purposes of benefit calculations was not a fiduciary act); Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990) (stating that the exclusion of a specific group of employees was not a fiduciary act). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Montesano v. Xerox Corp. Retirement Income Guarantee Plan
D. Conn. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 , 119 S.Ct. 755 , 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999); Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dall v. Chinet Co.
D. Me. · 1998 · confidence medium
Group, 6 F.3d 131 , 141 n. 13 (3d Cir.1993); Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990); Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Intern., AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 414-15 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 895 , 111 S.Ct. 244 , 112 L.Ed.2d 203 (1990); Sutton v. Weirton Steel Division of National Steel Corp., 724 F.2d 406, 410 (4th Cir.1983) (holding that an employer may change nonvested employee benefits without violating ERISA); Jackson v. Truck Drivers’ Union Local 42 Health and Welfare Fund, 933 F.Supp. 1124, 1142-43 (D.Mass.1996) (“from the outset, it is important to note that ERIS…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Esden v. Bank of Boston
D. Vt. · 1998 · confidence medium
The design of an employee benefits program and the designation of the employees who may participate in it is “purely a corporate management decision.” Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jacobson v. Hughes Aircraft Company
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990); Trenton v. Scott Paper Co., 832 F.2d 806, 809 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 , 108 S.Ct. 1576 , 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jacobson v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990); Trenton v. Scott Paper Co., 832 F.2d 806, 809 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 , 108 S.Ct. 1576 , 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yenyo v. Communications Satellite Corp.
D. Maryland · 1995 · confidence medium
See Fletcher v. Kroger Co., 942 F.2d 1137, 1139-40 (7th Cir.1991) (early retirement benefits may be provided only to employees at certain locations, excluding those at other locations); Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990) (early retirement incentive benefits may be offered only to employees in certain departments, excluding those in other departments); Trenton v. Scott Paper Co., 832 F.2d 806, 808-810 (3rd Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 , 108 S.Ct. 1576 , 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1988) (plan amendment may provide early retirement benefits only to certain classes of employees…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 18 Employee Benefits Cas. 2400, Pens. Plan Guide P 23903t Jesse M. Averhart v. Us West Management Pension Plan, Joan M. Sandquist, and Theodore C. Sandquist v. Us West Management Pension Plan, and John G. Shea, Martha J. Sabell, Jack G. Laird, Gerald Wuerker, and H. Vern White v. Us West Management Pension Plan
10th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Group, 6 F.3d 131 , 141 n. 13 (3d Cir.1993); Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990); Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern., AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 414-15 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 895 , 111 S.Ct. 244 , 112 L.Ed.2d 203 (1990). 5 42 Because the EBC's adoption of the 5 + 5 amendment was done in the committee's capacity as "drafter," it was not subject to ERISA's fiduciary standards. "[A]n employer is free to develop an employee benefit plan as it wishes because when it does so it makes a corporate management decision, unrestricted by ERISA's fiduciary duties." Haberern…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Averhart v. US WEST Management Pension Plan
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Group, 6 F.3d 131 , 141 n. 13 (3d Cir.1993); Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990); Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Intern., AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 414-15 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 895 , 111 S.Ct. 244 , 112 L.Ed.2d 203 (1990). 5 Because the EBC’s adoption of the 5 + 5 amendment was done in the committee’s capacity as “drafter,” it was not subject to ERISA’s fiduciary standards. “[A]n employer is free to develop an employee benefit plan as it wishes because when it does so it makes a corporate management decision, unrestricted by ERISA’s fiduciary duti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kascewicz v. Citibank, N.A.
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · confidence medium
As Citibank notes (Def.’s Reply Mem. at 21), the federal courts have recognized a distinction between a plan sponsor’s design of an employee benefit program, which is “purely a corporate management decision,” Belade v. *1320 ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), and the administration of such a program in accordance with its terms, which is reviewable de novo.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hickey v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing
7th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
In Fletcher , we noted In Firestone, the court held that the denial of benefits by the administrator of a benefits plan should be reviewed de novo unless the plan gives the administrator “discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Yet Firestone “does not bring design decisions within ERISA” Rather Firestone is limited to questions of plan interpretation “and does not purport to expand the scope of ERISA to include design decisions defining the parameters of a program.” 942 F.2d at 1139 (quoting Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 16 Employee Benefits Cas. 2387, Pens. Plan Guide P 23891k Michael Hickey, Fred Jung, Michael Crowley v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing, Formerly Known as Staley Continental Incorporated, Formerly Known as Cfs Continental
7th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
In Fletcher, we noted 32 In Firestone, the court held that the denial of benefits by the administrator of a benefits plan should be reviewed de novo unless the plan gives the administrator "discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan." Yet Firestone "does not bring design decisions within ERISA." Rather Firestone is limited to questions of plan interpretation "and does not purport to expand the scope of ERISA to include design decisions defining the parameters of a program." 33 942 F.2d at 1139 (quoting Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 7…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Kulzer Roofing, Inc.
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 1992 · confidence medium
Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Amato v. Western Union International, 773 F.2d 1402 , 1416-17 (2d Cir.1985), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 1113 , 106 S.Ct. 1167 , 89 L.Ed.2d 288 (1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nazay v. Miller
3rd Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Employers occupy a precarious position vis-a-vis ERISA’s fiduciary mandates as “ERISA permits employers to wear ‘two hats,’ and ... they assume fiduciary status ‘only when and to the extent’ that they function in their capacity as plan administrators, not when they conduct business that is not regulated by ERISA.” Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Amato v. Western Union International, 773 F.2d 1402 , 1416-17 (2d Cir.1985), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 1113 , 106 S.Ct. 1167 , 89 L.Ed.2d 288 (1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nazay v. Miller
3rd Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Rather, ERISA is concerned with the administration of an established plan and its elements." Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 863 F.2d at 283 (emphasis in original). 19 To secure the proper administration of benefit plans, ERISA imposes a heightened standard of care on fiduciaries, 8 who must "discharge [their] duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and ... for the exclusive purpose of ... providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries." 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1). 20 Employers occupy a precarious position vis-a-vis ERISA's fiduciar…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Howard Fletcher, William Marshall and Fred Ray v. The Kroger Co., an Ohio Corporation (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Yet Firestone “does not bring design decisions within ERISA.” Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (emphasis supplied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reichelt v. Emhart Corporation
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Belade v. The ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam ) (Firestone "does not purport to expand the scope of ERISA to include design decisions defining the parameters of a program").
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reichelt v. Emhart Corp.
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Belade v. The ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam) (Firestone “does not purport to expand the scope of ERISA to include design decisions defining the parameters of a program”).
cited Cited "see" Siskind v. Sperry Retirement Program, Unisys
2d Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Siskind v. The Sperry Retirement Program
2d Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp.
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (design of employee benefit plan is strictly a business decision and does not give rise to any fiduciary duties under ERISA); Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 875 F.2d 1075, 1078 (4th Cir.) (‘“Congress left employers much discretion in designing their plans’ under ERISA and in determining the level and conditions of benefits.”) (quoting Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 863 F.2d 279, 283 (3d Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 919 , 110 S.Ct. 281 , 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" William J. Elmore Wayne Comer, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated v. Cone Mills Corporation Cone Mills Acquisition Corporation Dewey L. Trogdon Lacy G. Baynes, and Paul W. Stephanz Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor, Amicus Curiae (Three Cases). William J. Elmore Wayne Comer, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated v. Cone Mills Corporation Cone Mills Acquisition Corporation Dewey L. Trogdon Lacy G. Baynes, and Paul W. Stephanz Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor, Amicus Curiae
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (design of employee benefit plan is strictly a business decision and does not give rise to any fiduciary duties under ERISA); Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 875 F.2d 1075, 1078 (4th Cir.) (" 'Congress left employers much discretion in designing their plans' under ERISA and in determining the level and conditions of benefits.") (quoting Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 863 F.2d 279, 283 (3d Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 919 , 110 S.Ct. 281 , 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" William J. Elmore Wayne Comer, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated v. Cone Mills Corporation Cone Mills Acquisition Corporation Dewey L. Trogdon Lacy G. Baynes, and Paul W. Stephanz Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., (Three Cases). William J. Elmore Wayne Comer, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated v. Cone Mills Corporation Cone Mills Acquisition Corporation Dewey L. Trogdon Lacy G. Baynes, and Paul W. Stephanz Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A. (2×)
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (design of employee benefit plan is strictly a business decision and does not give rise to any fiduciary duties under ERISA); Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 875 F.2d 1075, 1078 (4th Cir.) (" 'Congress left employers much discretion in designing their plans' under ERISA and in determining the level and conditions of benefits.") (quoting Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 863 F.2d 279, 283 (3d Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 919 , 110 S.Ct. 281 , 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp. (2×)
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 738 (2d Cir.1990) (design of employee benefit plan is strictly a business decision and does not give rise to any fiduciary duties under ERISA); Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 875 F.2d 1075, 1078 (4th Cir.) (" 'Congress left employers much discretion in designing their plans' under ERISA and in determining the level and conditions of benefits.”) (quoting Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 863 F.2d 279, 283 (3d Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 919 , 110 S.Ct. 281 , 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan
W.D.N.Y. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence medium
I agree with the court in Gaynor that under these types of circumstances, an employer does not have a duty to “apprise an employee of all the ramifications of deciding not to participate in a pension plan." 690 F.Supp. at 376 ; see also Belade v. ITT Corp., 909 F.2d 736, 737-38 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward Belade, William Cochran, Monica Denman, Harriet Dokla, Charles Griebell, Joy Laiacone, Eleanor McGovern Geraldine Privee, Frank Yates and David Zeller, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
v.
Itt Corporation
704.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 25, 1990.
909 F.2d 736
Published

909 F.2d 736

Edward BELADE, William Cochran, Monica Denman, Harriet
Dokla, Charles Griebell, Joy Laiacone, Eleanor McGovern,
Geraldine Privee, Frank Yates and David Zeller, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ITT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 704, Docket 89-7924.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 17, 1990.
Decided July 25, 1990.

Joseph D. Garrison (Garrison, Kahn, Silbert & Arterton, New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

William L. Kandel (Russell G. Tisman, McDermott, Will & Emery, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before FEINBERG, PRATT and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

In 1986, defendant-appellant ITT Corporation ("ITT") and Compagnie Generale d'Electricite ("CGE") entered into negotiations for the purchase by CGE of ITT's worldwide telecommunications businesses and related research facilities, including the Advanced Technology Center ("ATC") in Shelton, Connecticut where Edward Belade and the other plaintiffs-appellants (the "Belade claimants") then worked.[1] These negotiations culminated in the sale by ITT to CGE of the stock of those telecommunications businesses and facilities. The businesses were transferred as going concerns, and over 90,000 employees, including the ATC employees, were transferred with the divested units. The terms of sale negotiated by ITT included continuing employment in the same positions for transferred ITT employees, with equivalent terms and conditions of employment, including normal retirement benefits. CGE then contributed these units, together with CGE's worldwide telecommunications businesses, to Alcatel, N.V. ("Alcatel"), a newly formed corporation in which ITT has a substantial minority stock position. On or about February 20, 1987, Alcatel announced that the ATC would close by July 31, 1987. Termination of ATC employees commenced on March 2, 1987.

2

Largely because of the imminent divestiture pursuant to the CGE venture, ITT sought to restructure its corporate headquarters into a significantly smaller organization with correspondingly reduced staffing levels. Toward this end, ITT's management designed an Enhanced Retirement Program (the "Program") that offered retirement incentives, in the words of the directors' resolution establishing the Program, to certain "currently active, full-time, Corporate employees of designated departments and units of ITT World Headquarters located at 320 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., and elsewhere." Immediately following approval of the Program by ITT's board of directors on October 7, 1986, ITT management designated certain headquarters departments to be eligible for the Program, and then invited participation by qualified employees of those designated departments via personalized letters dated October 8, 1986. Letters were sent only to employees in management-designated departments. The pension administration committee that administers ITT's retirement plan was not involved in the decision to offer the Program, its design, or the selection of employees to receive offers thereunder.

3

ATC was not designated for inclusion in the Program, since the Program was not made available to employees who, after the CGE sale, would be employed by Alcatel. Accordingly, none of the Belade claimants received offer letters.

4

In an action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the Belade claimants alleged, inter alia, that ITT violated its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001-1461 (1988), by denying ATC employees enhanced retirement benefits under the Program. Following motions for partial summary judgment by all parties, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of ITT, ruling that in designing the Program and designating employees eligible to participate in it, ITT was not bound by ERISA. Judgment was subsequently entered dismissing the action with prejudice, and a timely appeal and cross-appeal were taken from that judgment.

5

We write only to address the question whether an employer's decision to exclude certain employees from the design of an early retirement program implicates fiduciary duties under ERISA.[2] We answer this question in the negative, in accord with Trenton v. Scott Paper Co., 832 F.2d 806 (3rd Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1576, 99 L.Ed.2d 891 (1988), because "[t]he design of the [Program] was purely a corporate management decision," id. at 809, and ITT "had no fiduciary duty" under ERISA concerning its adoption, id.

6

"ERISA permits employers to wear 'two hats,' and ... they assume fiduciary status 'only when and to the extent' that they function in their capacity as plan administrators, not when they conduct business that is not regulated by ERISA." Amato v. Western Union Int'l, 773 F.2d 1402, 1416-17 (2d Cir.1985) (quoting Amato v. Western Union Int'l, 596 F.Supp. 963, 968 (S.D.N.Y.1984)), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 1113, 106 S.Ct. 1167, 89 L.Ed.2d 288 (1986). Here, as the district court correctly concluded, "the defendant's decision to design a plan for employees in select departments did not give rise to any fiduciary duty under ERISA because the company did not by virtue of the Program's formation exercise authority or control over the 'management' or 'administration' of either the [ITT Salaried Retirement] Plan or the Program."

7

Contrary to appellants' contention, the Supreme Court's decision in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), does not bring design decisions within ERISA. Firestone "is limited to the appropriate standard of review in Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B) actions challenging denials of benefits based on [ERISA-governed] plan interpretations," id., 109 S.Ct. at 953, and does not purport to expand the scope of ERISA to include design decisions defining the parameters of a program. See Brown v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., 876 F.2d 546, 551-52 (6th Cir.1989) (Nelson, J., concurring); see also Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 875 F.2d 1075, 1078-79 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 281, 107 L.Ed.2d 261 (1989); Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 863 F.2d 279, 285-86 (3d Cir.1988).

8

Although ITT cross-appealed from the judgment of the district court, and sought sanctions below, ITT has presented no argument for sanctions on appeal. In any event, none would be appropriate on this record.

9

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

The Belade claimants seek to bring this action on behalf of a class of salaried personnel, approximately forty in number, who were employed at ATC on October 8, 1986 and were denied the opportunity to participate in an Enhanced Retirement Program hereinafter described

2

For the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court granting partial summary judgment to ITT, we agree that ITT clearly did not include ATC as a designated unit under the Program