Brad Edwards v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

MEMORANDUM

Brad Edwards appeals from the district court’s (1) dismissal of his Washington breach of contract claim as conflict-preempted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a), and (2) denial of Edwards’ motion to amend his complaint to add a claim under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Edwards argues that Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Voluntary Executive Separation Program (VESP) is not an employee benefit plan under ERISA, because ERISA is “not designed” to cover corporate programs that require a release of claims in exchange for payment, and because VESP eligibility determinations involve no discretion, i.e.&emdash;“Lockheed’s plan simply offer[s] a lump sum incentive in exchange for a release of claims.” We reject these contentions.

We disagree that the release takes this out of ERISA, because ERISA plans may require an employee to execute a release of claims to qualify for and ultimately receive plan benefits. Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 894 , 116 S.Ct. 1783 , 135 L.Ed.2d 153 (1996); Sluimer v. Verity, Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 594 (9th Cir.2010).…