## Facts

- Lucent sought to reduce senior employees in connection with selling manufacturing plants.
- Lucent offered an early retirement package that increased pension benefits under an ERISA-governed plan and provided an $11,000 special benefit if employees retired by June 30, 2001.
- Lucent allegedly represented the offer as a one-time, non-negotiable final opportunity and stated no additional incentives would be offered.
- Plaintiffs retired effective June 30, 2001 in reliance on those statements.
- On October 1, 2001, Lucent offered remaining senior employees a similar package plus an additional $15,000 cash payment funded from the pension plan.
- Plaintiffs sued for state-law fraud, seeking $15,000 per plaintiff in actual damages and punitive damages, alleging Lucent knowingly misrepresented the offer’s finality to induce retirements.

## Issues

1. Whether the state-law fraud claims were completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a), making them removable as federal claims.
2. Whether the fraud claims were completely preempted by LMRA § 301 because their resolution required interpreting a collective-bargaining agreement.
3. Whether NLRA (Garmon) preemption could supply federal-question jurisdiction supporting removal.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the federal district court’s denial of remand and its dismissal of the complaint.
- ERISA complete preemption did not apply because plaintiffs sought tort damages for alleged misrepresentations about the offer, not plan benefits or enforcement of plan terms under § 502(a).
- LMRA § 301 complete preemption did not apply because the fraud theory arose from alleged employer misstatements and did not require interpretation of any collective-bargaining agreement.
- NLRA (Garmon) preemption did not create removal jurisdiction; even if applicable, it would channel the dispute to the NLRB rather than create a federal court forum.
- The case was remanded with instructions to remand to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Complete preemption is jurisdictional and permits removal only when a state claim is displaced by a federal cause of action; ordinary (conflict) preemption is a merits defense and does not create removal jurisdiction.
- ERISA complete preemption exists only when the claim fits within ERISA’s civil enforcement provision, such as a suit to recover benefits, enforce rights, or clarify rights under plan terms.
- State-law fraud claims seeking damages for inducement to retire, rather than benefits due under an ERISA plan, do not fall within ERISA § 502(a) merely because an ERISA plan is implicated in the background.
- LMRA § 301 completely preempts only claims substantially dependent on interpreting a collective-bargaining agreement; claims based on independent state-law duties can proceed without § 301 recharacterization.
- NLRA (Garmon) preemption does not itself supply federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

## Conclusion

The court held that employees’ state-law fraud claims over alleged misrepresentations about an early retirement offer were not completely preempted by ERISA or the LMRA, and NLRA preemption could not support removal; accordingly, federal jurisdiction was lacking and the case had to be returned to state court.


Felix v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 387 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2004)