Inter-Modal Rail Employees Ass’n. v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 963 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2000)(Unpublished).-Plaintiffs-Appellants, former employees of Santa Fe Terminal Services, brought this action against various employers for interference with protected benefits under ERISA § 510 (which protects an employee from being discharged to avoid payment of pension or welfare benefits) and for personal injury under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). This court affirmed the district court’s finding that ERISA’s statute of limitations barred the ERISA claims.
Reviewing
the district court’s choice of statute of limitations de novo, this court
observed that ERISA does not provide a statute of limitations for an action
brought under § 510. When Congress fails to supply an express statute of
limitations, "courts apply the most closely analogous statute of
limitations under state law," unless the state statute "frustrate[s]
or significantly interfere[s] with federal policies."
The district court cited this court’s decision in Burrey
v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 159
F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1998) that the one-year statute of
limitations for a tort action under California law for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy applied to ERISA § 510 claims.
Appellants here argued that the district court erred in retroactively
applying Burrey, decided after they
had commenced their action.
This court found no such error, citing Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993), for the proposition that "a rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law." Id. at 96. This court further found no grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Courts apply the doctrine of equitable tolling sparingly and the doctrine is "not available to avoid the consequences of one's own negligence." Furthermore, none of appellants’ other suggested limitations periods bore sufficient relationship to the essence of a § 510 claim.
