Belaire, et al v. Burlington Resrc Inc, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30895
Summary Calendar
DWAYNE BELAIRE; JOHN BELCHER; WADE
BONDS; BOBBY W. BUTLER; CLARENCE E.
CANNON; ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
BURLINGTON RESOURCES, INC.; BURLINGTON
RESOURCES, INC. DISCRETIONARY SEVERANCE
BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(6:01-CV-786-RFD-MEM)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this ERISA case, Appellants appeal the district court’s
rejection of their claims for severance benefits under Appellee
Burlington Resources, Inc.’s (“BRI”) Discretionary Severance
Benefit Plan (“Severance Plan”) in connection with BRI’s
outsourcing its platform labor and logistics operations in the Gulf
of Mexico to a third party (“Baker Energy”). More specifically,

-- 1 of 4 --

1 352 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 2003).
2
Appellants (BRI employees whom the district court previously held
not entitled to benefits under BRI’s Change in Control and Employee
Severance Protection Plan), alternatively sought benefits from the
Severance Plan. They contend that —— despite their ineligibility
for benefits under the literal terms of the Severance Plan —— they
are nevertheless owed benefits under that plan because (1) the
actions of BRI constituted “interference” with their rights to
obtain benefits, in contravention of 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (“ERISA §
510"); and (2) specified management personnel of BRI and the Plan
Administrator breached their fiduciary duties to Appellants in
violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1104. Appellants also appeal the district
court’s denial of statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) for
the alleged fiduciary breaches. For essentially the same reasons
extensively and patiently set forth by the district court in its
Ruling filed on July 23, 2004, we affirm.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and other filings of
counsel, the record in this case, including the applicable plan
documents, and the aforesaid Ruling of the district court. As a
result, we are convinced that the claims of Appellants are without
merit.
First, Appellants’ interference claim under § 510 of ERISA
cannot overcome the analysis and holding of Bodine v. Emplrs. Cas.
Co.1 Appellants have failed to show that BRI somehow took

-- 2 of 4 --

3
prohibited action for the purpose of interfering with Appellants’
attainment of any right to which they were entitled. As Appellants
were entitled to no existing enforceable rights, they were required
to show that BRI’s actions were taken for the purpose of
interfering with rights to which Appellants might thereafter become
entitled under the plan in question. Based on the essentially
undisputed facts of this case, the district court correctly
concluded that the actions by and on behalf of BRI were not taken
for the purpose of interfering with rights to which they might have
become entitled. To the contrary, the actions were legitimately
taken to ensure continued and uninterrupted employment of
Appellants by Baker Energy, BRI’s successor in the Gulf of Mexico
activities, both in terms of structure and amount of compensation.
That BRI was also motivated by its non-discriminatory desire to
avoid a break in service for these experienced personnel that could
result from unintended and unwarranted severance payments is of no
moment. Avoiding the inadvertent creation of a negative incentive
for Appellants’ continued, uninterrupted work when changing
employers from BRI to Baker Energy does not constitute purposeful
interference with obtaining benefits to which Appellants had no
current entitlement or expectation of future entitlement if hired
without a break in service by Baker Energy. Under these
circumstances, the reasoning and holding of our opinion in Bodine
bars a determination of actionable “interference” within the
intendment of § 510 of ERISA.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Furthermore, in light of the unique nature of fiduciary
relationships under ERISA, which recognizes that fiduciaries can
wear “two hats,” a simple test of undivided loyalty is inapt.
Absent any showing of deceptive practices, misrepresentations, or
other untoward acts, the Appellants’ fiduciary breach claims miss
the mark entirely. We need not waste judicial resources or paper
in reiterating the detailed analysis and conclusion so ably
provided by the district court in its eminently correct Ruling.
Finally, given our affirmance of the district court’s
rejection of Appellants’ substantive claims for interference and
for breach of fiduciary duty, they have no viable basis of
entitlement to statutory penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). We
affirm the district court’s rejection of this claim as well.
The district court’s Final Judgment, filed August 11, 2004 on
the basis of its aforesaid Ruling, is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --