Although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”), regulates nearly all non-governmental employer sponsored benefit plans, a notable exception exists for so-called “church plans.” A church plan is “a plan established and maintained  for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (33). Church plans are a hot topic at the moment as the Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear Rollins v. Dignity Health, 830 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2016) cert. granted sub nom. Dignity Health, et al. v. Rollins, 137 S. Ct. 547 (2016) on March 27, 2017. That case will address and hopefully provide clarification as to the scope of the church plan exemption.
Last week, while I was at a conference where the church plan exemption and Rollins case were discussed at length, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a decision in Durham v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 2:16-cv-08202-ODW(KSx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19402 (C.D. Cal. February 10, 2017). In Durham, the Court found that a long-term disability (“LTD”) benefit plan Loyola Marymount University (“LMU”) sponsored for the benefit of its employees was not a church plan. The Court found ERISA applied to the claim instead.
The plaintiff in Durham was a LMU employee who participated in the university’s LTDplan. The LTD plan was administered and insured by Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”). He applied for disability benefits under the LTD plan. His claim was denied. The plaintiff filed suit in California state court, specifically alleged that the LTD plan was a church plan exempt from ERISA, and asserted a variety of state law claims against the insurer. Prudential removed the case to federal court and asserted that ERISA completely preempted the plaintiff’s claims.
The Durham plaintiff moved to remand his lawsuit to California state court and argued that the church plan exemption applied. The Court disagreed. Citing Rollins, supra, as well as case from the Third and Seventh Circuits, it noted that the church plan exemption requires that the plan in question be both established by a church and maintained by a church or by a convention or association of churches. With respect to LMU, the Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion at the LMU itself was a church. It noted that the university itself did not believe it was a church, that the university hired Catholic and non-Catholic professors, and that it received funding from sources outside of the Catholic church. The Court further held that the existence of a church on LMU’s campus did not make the university a church. Because the LTD plan was not established by a church, the Court did not address the second prong of the test as to whether the LTD plan was maintained by a church or a convention or association of churches.
The motion to remand the lawsuit was denied as was the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim based on ERISA preemption.
Adam Garner is the definition of professionalism and expertise. He is currently handling my case, which turned out to be more difficult than expected, and is getting positive results. I would highly recommend Mr. Garner to anyone with a disability and/or workplace issue.
The Garner Firm provides quality advice and guidance for clients with employment matters. I highly recommend the Garner Firm.
Adam did an exceptional job in helping me both understand my situation and fight for my benefits/disability claim. He is extremely knowledgeable about the law and how it will effect your case. He was up front with us on how difficult our case may be and was always available to discuss our situation/answer questions. Adam also cares about you and takes an interest. He did an outstanding job to help me win my case against strong odds and was a blessing to have him as my lawyer. Thank you Adam for all you have done and continue doing on my behalf.
I would highly recommend Adam. He was courteous, professional, and very knowledgeable. He was attentive to my concerns and always responsive in a timely fashion.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.