Employee Benefits

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in False Claim Act action by plaintiff-employee’s union, alleging that defendant made false statements to govt. when seeking payments for wages paid to employees for work done on federal project by certifying its compliance with prevailing wage standards set forth in Davis-Bacon Act. Record was ambiguous as to whether any Davis-Bacon violation occurred with respect to defendant’s flat $5.00 per hour deduction for certain fringe benefits for employees who were not eligible for said benefits, as well as defendant’s failure to compute health benefits in terms of how much in said benefits each employee used. As such, plaintiff could not show that defendant made knowingly false statements in its Davis-Bacon certifications. Ct., though, rejected Dist. Ct.’s finding that defendant’s claimed reliance on unspecified advice of its accountants when making instant certifications precluded plaintiff from establishing that defendant knew that its certifications were false.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, after finding that defendant, as purchaser of assets from third-party company, could not liable under theory of successor liability for withdrawal liability arising out of third-party’s failure to continue making pension payments to plaintiff-pension fund as required under collective bargaining agreement. While Dist. Ct. found that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant was aware at time of assert purchase that third-party could be liable to plaintiff for failing to make pension payments, record showed that there was triable issue as to whether successor liability applied in instant case, where: (1) representative of defendant had notice at time of asset purchase that third-party was signatory to collective bargaining agreement, that there was possibility of future withdrawal liability and that instant pension fund was insufficiently funded; and (2) there was enough evidence to create triable issue as to whether there was substantial continuity in operation of defendant’s and third-party’s businesses so as to allow for imposition of successor liability.

Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to review ALJ’s imposition of $114,956 civil penalty on petitioner, as representative payee of his mother with respect to her SSI benefits, arising out of petitioner’s failure to inform Social Security Administration that his mother was living in Puerto Rico, which would disqualify her from such benefits, since such appeal could only be filed directly with Ct. of Appeals under 42 USC section 1320a-8. Moreover, Dept. did not err in dismissing petitioner’s appeal of ALJ order, where petitioner’s counsel filed said appeal five days late. Fact that petitioner's counsel did not receive ALJ’s mailed decision until after five-day deemed service date did not require different result.

In ERISA action seeking declaration that plaintiff-pension fund did not owe defendant-employer $49,000 refund for payments made to fund on behalf of one employee, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that no refund was due, where: (1) defendant was responsible for any error in making such payments; and (2) relevant collective bargaining agreements indicated that said employee was covered so as to make proper such payments on behalf of employee. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in finding that plaintiff could not enforce its own rules requiring defendant to initiate arbitration of withdrawal liability issue between parties through procedures set forth by American Arbitration Association (AAA) that in turn required defendant to pay $6,100 (as set forth in 2013 amended rules) as opposed to $650 under old rules. While Dist. Ct. found that old rules applied since Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) had not approved amended rules calling for $6,100 fee, Ct. held that AAA was not required to await PBGC approval of 2013 amended rules, and thus could charge defendant $6,100 to initiate its arbitration of withdrawal liability issue with plaintiff.