Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton

United States Supreme Court

June 5, 2017

581 U.S.____(2017)
v.
MARIA STAPLETON, ET AL.; ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
LAURENCE KAPLAN; AND DIGNITY HEALTH, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
STARLA ROLLINS

          Argued March 27, 2017 [*]

         CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-74.

          Syllabus

         The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) generally obligates private employers offering pension plans to adhere to an array of rules designed to ensure plan solvency and protect plan participants. "[C]hurch plan[s], " however, are exempt from those regulations. 29 U.S.C. §1003(b)(2). From the beginning, ERISA has defined a "church plan" as "a plan established and maintained . . . for its employees ... by a church." §1002(33)(A). Congress then amended the statute to expand that definition, adding the provision whose effect is at issue here: "A plan established and maintained for its employees ... by a church . . . includes a plan maintained by an organization . . . the principal purpose ... of which is the administration or funding of [such] plan . . . for the employees of a church . . ., if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church." §1002(33)(C)(i). (This opinion refers to the organizations described in that provision as "principal-purpose organizations.")

         Petitioners, who identify themselves as three church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities (collectively, hospitals), offer their employees defined-benefit pension plans. Those plans were established by the hospitals themselves, and are managed by internal employee-benefits committees. Respondents, current and former hospital employees, filed class actions alleging that the hospitals' pension plans do not fall within ERISAs church- plan exemption because they were not established by a church. The District Courts, agreeing with the employees, held that a plan must be established by a church to qualify as a church plan. The Courts of Appeals affirmed.

         Held: A plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a "church plan, " regardless of who established it. Pp. 5-15.

(a) The term "church plan" initially "mean[t]" only "a plan established and maintained ... by a church." But subparagraph (C)(i) provides that the original definitional phrase will now "include" another-"a plan maintained by [a principal-purpose] organization." That use of the word "include" is not literal, but tells readers that a different type of plan should receive the same treatment (i.e., an exemption) as the type described in the old definition. In other words, because Congress deemed the category of plans "established and maintained by a church" to "include" plans "maintained by" principal-purpose organizations, those plans-and all those plans-are exempt from ERISA's requirements.
Had Congress wanted, as the employees contend, to alter only the maintenance requirement, it could have provided in subparagraph (C)(i) that "a plan maintained by a church includes a plan maintained by" a principal-purpose organization-removing "established and" from the first part of the sentence. But Congress did not adopt that ready alternative. Instead, it added language whose most natural reading is to enable a plan "maintained" by a principal-purpose organization to substitute for a plan both "established" and "maintained" by a church. And as a corollary to that point, the employees' construction runs aground on the so-called surplusage canon-the presumption that each word Congress uses is there for a reason. The employees read subparagraph (C)(i) as if it were missing the two words "established and." This Court, however, "give[s] effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404. Pp. 5-12.
(b) Both parties' accounts of Congress's purpose in enacting subparagraph (C)(1) tend to confirm this Court's reading that plans maintained by principal-purpose organizations are eligible for the church-plan exemption, whatever their origins. According to the hospitals, Congress wanted to ensure that churches and church-affiliated organizations received comparable treatment under ERISA. If that is so, this Court's construction of the text fits Congress's objective to a T, as a church-establishment requirement would necessarily disfavor plans created by church affiliates. The employees, by contrast, claim that subparagraph (C)(i)'s main goal was to bring within the church-plan exemption plans managed by local pension boards- organizations often used by congregational denominations-so as to ensure parity between congregational and hierarchical churches. But that account cuts against, not in favor of, their position. Keeping the church-establishment requirement would have prevented some plans run by pension boards-the very entities the employees say Congress most wanted to benefit-from qualifying as "church plans" under ERISA. Pp. 12-14.

No. 16-74, 817 F.3d 517; No. 16-86, 810 F.3d 175; and No. 16-258, 830 F.3d 900, reversed.

          KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except GORSUCH, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion.

          OPINION

          Kagan, JUSTICE

         The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) exempts "church plan[s]" from its otherwise- comprehensive regulation of employee benefit plans. 88 Stat. 840, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(2). Under the statute, certain plans for the employees of churches or church-affiliated nonprofits count as "church plans" even though not actually administered by a church. See §1002(33)(C)(i). The question presented here is whether a church must have originally established such a plan for it to so qualify. ERISA, we hold, does not impose that requirement.

         I

         Petitioners identify themselves as three church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities (collectively, hospitals).[1] They offer defined-benefit pension plans to their employees. Those plans were established by the hospitals themselves-not by a church-and are managed by internal employee-benefits committees.

         ERISA generally obligates private employers offering pension plans to adhere to an array of rules designed to ensure plan solvency and protect plan participants. See generally New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 651 (1995) (cataloguing ERISAs "reporting and disclosure mandates, " "participation and vesting requirements, " and "funding standards"). But in enacting the statute, Congress made an important exception. "[C]hurch plan[s]" have never had to comply with ERISA's requirements. §1003(b)(2).

         The statutory definition of "church plan" came in two distinct phases. From the beginning, ERISA provided that "[t]he term 'church plan' means a plan established and maintained . . . for its employees ... by a church or by a convention or association of churches." §1002(33)(A). Then, in 1980, Congress amended the statute to expand that definition by deeming additional plans to fall within it. The amendment specified that for purposes of the church-plan definition, an "employee of a church" would include an employee of a church-affiliated organization (like the hospitals here). § 1002(33)(C)(if)(II). And it added the provision whose effect is at issue in these cases:

"A plan established and maintained for its employees ... by a church or by a convention or association of churches includes a plan maintained by an organization . . . the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such organization is controlled ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.