Deem v. BB&T Corporation , 279 F. App'x 283 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1708
BERNICE DEEM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BB&T CORPORATION, a North Carolina Corporation; PHYLLIS H.
ARNOLD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief
District Judge. (2:06-cv-00343)
Argued: March 19, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and Jane R. ROTH,
Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Leman Walton Auvil, RUSEN & AUVIL, Parkersburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Jill E. Hall, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID,
GRAFF & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Ricklin Brown, Mark H. Dellinger, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID,
GRAFF & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernice Deem (Deem) appeals the district court’s
dismissal of her complaint alleging breach of contract and other
West Virginia state law claims against BB&T Corporation and Phyllis
Arnold (collectively, BB&T) regarding the payment of severance
benefits. We affirm.
This case stems from a gender discrimination claim that
Deem asserted against her employer, One Valley Bancorp, Inc. (One
Valley). Deem and One Valley settled the claim by entering into a
settlement contract, dated July 29, 1998. The contract provided
that Deem would have “employment status” with One Valley as a paid
consultant until the earlier of August 31, 2007, or a merger or
acquisition involving One Valley “which results in change-in-
control.” J.A. 35-36. The contract also provided that if a change
in control occurred, Deem would be paid according to the One Valley
employee severance policy and that all other obligations under the
contract would then cease. As all parties concede, One Valley’s
severance policy is governed by the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Program (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-3007. On July
6, 2000, BB&T acquired One Valley, triggering the change-in-control
provision in the settlement contract. BB&T promptly sent a
severance check to Deem. Deem did not deposit or endorse this
check because she believed that her severance payment had not been
properly calculated. She then filed this lawsuit in state court,
2
which BB&T then removed to U.S. district court. Deem’s complaint
alleged breach of her settlement contract and asserted other state
law claims relating to the calculation and amount of her severance
benefits.
The district court concluded that Deem’s claims were
completely preempted by ERISA under Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila,
542 U.S. 200 (2004), and Sonoco Products Co. v. Physicians Health
Plan, Inc., 338 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2003). The district court
explained that Deem’s claims involved the calculation of her
benefits under the ERISA-governed severance plan. As a result,
Deem had standing to bring her claims under ERISA § 502, her claims
fell within the scope of ERISA, and resolution of her claims
required interpretation of the ERISA plan. See Sonoco Prods. Co.,
338 F.3d at 372. As the district court noted, Deem was required to
exhaust her administrative remedies under the plan prior to filing
an ERISA claim in federal court. See Gayle v. United Parcel Serv.,
Inc., 401 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2005). Because Deem failed to
exhaust administrative remedies, the district court was correct in
dismissing her complaint. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Deem v. BB&T Corp., No. 2:06-cv-00343
(S.D. W.Va. June 25, 2007).
AFFIRMED
3