Richard P. Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., a Delaware Corp., & Martin Marietta Ret. Income Plan for Salaried Employees, 805 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard P. Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., a Delaware Corp., & Martin Marietta Ret. Income Plan for Salaried Employees, 805 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Soileau & Associates, LLC v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company (laed, 2019-09-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Soileau & Associates, LLC v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
E.D. La. · 2019 · confidence medium
Goodrich Co., 871 F.2d 1290, 1294 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir. 1986)). a connection with or relation to” their ERISA plan at issue in this case, then ERISA preempts them.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Soileau & Associates, LLC v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
E.D. La. · 2019 · confidence medium
Goodrich Co., 871 F.2d 1290, 1294 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir. 1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Santini v. Cytec Industries, Inc.
S.D. Ala. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 1295 (citing Jackson v. Martin Marietta, 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986); Hermann Hospital v. MEBA Medical Benefits Plan, 845 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir.1988); Anderson v. John Morrell & Co., 880 F.2d 872 (8th Cir.1987); Straub v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 851 F.2d 1262 (10th Cir.1988); Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir.1986) cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016 , 107 S.Ct. 1893 , 95 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987); Pane v. RCA Corp., 667 F.Supp. 168 (D.N.J.1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cornett v. Aetna Life Insurance
S.D. Tex. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 , 107 S.Ct. 1549 , 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987), as well as numerous court of appeals opinions, and found that, "[b]ecause of the breadth of the preemption clause and the broad remedial purpose of ERISA, 'state laws found to beyond the scope of § 1144(a) are few.’” Cefalu, 871 F.2d at 1292 , quoting Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Linda Swerhun v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America
11th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Co., 960 F.2d at 1550 ; Williams v. Wright, 927 F.2d 1540, 1550 (11th Cir.1991); Amos, 868 F.2d at 431 ; Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodman v. S & a RESTAURANT CORP.
S.D. Miss. · 1990 · confidence medium
“Because of the breadth of the preemption clause and the broad remedial purpose of ERISA, ‘state laws found to be beyond the scope of § 1144(a) are few.’ ” Cefalu, 871 F.2d at 1294 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pan American Life Insurance Co. v. Erbauer Construction Corp. (2×)
Tex. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Goodrich Co., 871 F.2d 1290, 1294 (5th Cir.1989), quoting Jackson v. Martin Marietta Cory., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Laxson
Bankr. N.D. Tex. · 1989 · confidence medium
Id., quoting Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roy A. Cefalu v. B.F. Goodrich Company (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986). 18 . 481 U.S. 58 , 107 S.Ct. 1542 , 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). 19 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gorman v. Life Insurance Co. of North America
Tex. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
In Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986), the court noted that there are few state laws found to be beyond the scope of ERISA’s pre-emption provision, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1144 (a), (c)(1).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cantrell v. Currey
M.D. Ala. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
A law 'relates to’ an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 , 103 S.Ct. 2890 , 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983); see also Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986) (“The preemption provisions - of ERISA are to -be given a broad construction.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Response Oncology, Inc. v. MetraHealth Insurance
S.D. Fla. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Inc., 960 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079 , 113 S.Ct. 1045 , 122 L.Ed.2d 354 (1993); see also Jackson v. Martin, 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Haggard v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
M.D. La. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739 , 105 S.Ct. 2380, 2389 , 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985); see also Jackson v. Martin Marietta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.1986). 9 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." James T. Williams v. Fred P. Wright, Jr., Individually and as Liquidating Trustee of Wright Pest Control Co. Of South Carolina, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Jackson v. Martin Marrieta Corp., 805 F.2d 1498 , 1498 & n. 1 (11th Cir.1986) (state law claim for breach of contract preempted); Straub v. Western Union Tel.
Richard P. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and Martin Marietta Retirement Income Plan for Salaried Employees, Defendants-Appellees
86-3400.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 16, 1986.
805 F.2d 1498
Joseph R. Moss, Cocoa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., Michael P. McMahon, Akerman, Senter-fitt & Eidson, Orlando, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Roney, Hill, Kravitch.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case raises the issue of whether a state law claim for breach of contract alleging improper calculation of an employee’s pension service date is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1982). Although this circuit has not ruled on the issue of preemption of such a state law claim, we agree with the overwhelming majority of decisions that have found similar claims to be barred by ERISA. [1]

Appellant Richard Jackson contends that while interviewing for a new position with the Martin Marietta Corporation in 1977 the corporation informed him that his pension service date would be September of 1959. Because Jackson had not been continuously employed by the corporation since 1959, his pension service date was later corrected as being May of 1974. Jackson contends that this action was a breach of contract under state law. Jackson brought this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Jurisdiction was based upon diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional provisions of ERISA. The district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Jackson could not bring a claim for breach of contract due to section 514 of ERISA which provides:

[T]he provisions of this subchapter ... shall supercede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan....

29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (1982). We affirm the district court.

The preemption provisions of ERISA are to be given a broad construction. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 2389, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985). The scope of this provision is not limited to state law specifically pertaining to employee benefit plans. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 98, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2900-01, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983). Nevertheless, the ERISA preemption provisions are not all-inclusive. Some state laws “may affect employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law ‘relates to’ the plan.” Id. at 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2901 n. 21. Due to the breadth of the preemption clause and the broad remedial purpose of ERISA, see Powell v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 780 F.2d 419, 421 (4th Cir.1985), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2892, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986), however, state laws found to be beyond the scope of § 1144(a) are few. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2901 n. 21 (1983) (indicating approval of second circuit decision holding § 1144(a) does not preempt state garnishment laws with regard to alimony and support orders).

[*1500] The state law claim brought by appellant directly impacts the administration of an employee benefit plan. See Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 754 F.2d 1499, 1505 (9th Cir.1985). In light of Congress’ intention to preclude state law claims pertaining to the administration of employee benefit programs, the appellant’s claim was properly preempted by § 1144(a).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

1

. See, e.g., Light v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 790 F.2d 1247 (5th Cir.1986) (state claim for breach of fiduciary duties and deceit precluded); Misic v. Building Serv. Employees Health & Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir.1986) (state law claim for breach of contract precluded); Blake-man v. Mead Containers, 779 F.2d 1146 (6th Cir.1985) (state law claim for breach of contract precluded); Powell v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 780 F.2d 419 (4th Cir.1985) (state claim for breach of fiduciary duty precluded), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2892, 90 L.Ed.2d 980 (1986); Ellenburg v. Brockway, Inc., 763 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir.1985) (state claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing precluded); Blau v. Del Monte Corp., 748 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir.1985) (state claim for breach of contract and fraud claims precluded), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 183, 88 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); Lafferty v. Solar Turbines Int'l, 666 F.2d 408 (9th Cir.1982) (state claim for breach of contract precluded); Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 653 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir.) (state claim of tortious interference with contract precluded), cer t. denied, 454 U.S. 968, 102 S.Ct. 512, 70 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981); cf. Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir.1986) (state fraud claim precluded).