Hampers v. W. R. Grace & Co., Inc., 202 F.3d 44 (1^st Cir. 2000) -This court considered whether ERISA preempts a common law cause of action for lump sum contract damages.  The alleged breach involved the failure of a former employer to enroll the plaintiff in a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP). This form of ERISA-regulated employee pension benefit plan is an "excess benefit plan" or "top hat" plan.  A top-hat plan provides certain highly compensated employees with retirement benefits in addition to, and on top of, the benefits provided by the employer's qualified plan.

The plaintiff, Dr. Hampers, co-founded NMC, a company that provides dialysis treatment to patients through private clinics.  W.R. Grace and Co. later purchased NMC and made it a subsidiary.  Hampers became an employee, and in 1990, became an executive vice president of Grace and director of its health care group, which included NMC. At issue in the trial court was whether, under the terms of a 1991 agreement with Grace, the plaintiff should have been automatically included in a SERP created in 1995 for NMC employees. The trial court applied New York laws of contract construction to determine that the 1991 Agreement contained no express or implied promise of participation in any future SERP.

Hampers appealed on grounds that the trial court denied his jury demand.  The district court's denial of Hampers' jury demand resulted from its legal ruling that ERISA preempted his claim.  This court reviewed the trial court's decision de novo, affirming the trial court’s finding of preemption.

ERISA preemption analysis involves two central questions: (1) whether the plan at issue is an 'employee benefit plan' and (2) whether the cause of action 'relates to' this employee benefit plan. The court found the NMC SERP was an ERISA-regulated "employee benefit plan."  Then the Court focused on the second prong.  Citing New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co., 514 U.S. 645, 656 (1995), this court noted there were three major types of laws commonly subject to ERISA preemption.  One is a state law cause of action that provides "alternative enforcement mechanisms" to ERISA's enforcement regime.  ERISA's carefully crafted civil enforcement scheme is particularly relevant in that it demonstrates that Congress intended that the enforcement remedies were exclusive.  Courts must "look beyond the face of the complaint" and determine the real nature of the claim "regardless of plaintiff's ... characterization."

Because the very same conduct—Grace’s failure to include Hampers in the NMC SERP—underlay both Hampers' state law contract claim and his ERISA-benefits claim, this court viewed the state law claim as an alternative mechanism for obtaining ERISA plan benefits. The court pointed out that it has consistently held that a cause of action "relates to" an ERISA plan when a court must evaluate or interpret the terms of the ERISA-regulated plan to determine liability under the state law cause of action.