WPC3u oDryU3yD@Oɑ7LYgJ-$rhN;fmqzuVg9AhJqZp_2kaM3hȍ3WtR_ߞ(5[Nlߏ}( >>oֱPyg:|`FӤBi6"Q2K)#`W%ȆF[C ,Jq2(u+ bVQɄE؄UHktp'MZqDRnq5sL} $i 1pG `>rfD6gp+@ -{A(S6بeV0.n-ޜV\0ϲB\-) rm]RU5{i m +m UD'T;Ǔ̞~1brKI$%*KD/n: 0v: 0`9; 0`; 0`; 0`Y< 0`< 08= 0Q= 02#> 0U> 0:Q? 0Y? 0_? 0 C@ 0jMA 0B B*;D D/eD D+D 0D D/CF 0rF 06@G 0vG 0:~H 0^H 0<I 1mRIU6IU>IU*3J 1u]J 72J 72K 0c6KC KU<U 1.\.\.\.\.\ 72\\\H\\\ 0N/c{}cf 0bg 0< h 0(\h AMhhhhhhiQjQjQjQjlllllEpEpEpEpEpEpEp?rHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XApXXX  =ApXdd=      0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular3  ʑ26X:i+003|xTABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $XXXXX=XXdd=      8    _=XXXdXd= XXXXXXCf._Pisciotta_v.TeledyneIndus.,Inc.,91F.3d1326,1332  (9thCir.1996)(rejectingcontinuingviolationtheoryforclaim  subjecttostatestatuteoflimitationsunder_ERISA_Ԁ510#XXXX XX # XXXXXXԀby \ analogyto_ERISA_Ԁ413);seegenerallyRodriguez_Narvaez_v. 2 _Nazario_,895F.2d38,42(1stCir.1990)(discussing,incontextof X federalcivilrightsactionssubjecttostatestatutesof . limitations,considerationsinvolvedindeterminingwhetherto   applystatelawexceptionstoapplicationofstatestatutesof   limitations)#XXXX XX~#.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    $XXXXX=XXdd=      10    _=XXXdXd=TheNinthCircuithaspermittedenforcementof_ERISA_Ԁ404  undera"structuraldefect"theory,whichpositsthat"rulesthat  excludeemployeesfromreceivingbenefitsforreasonsthatare \ arbitraryandcapriciousarestructurallydefectiveandviolate 2 section1104."_Siles_v.ILGWU_Nat'l_ԀRetirementFund,783F.2d923, X 929(9thCir.1986);seealsoAbraham,85F.3dat112930 . (discussing"structuraldefect"theory).Defendantsarguedin   theirmemoranduminfurthersupportoftheirmotiontodismissthat   Plaintiffs'structuraldefectclaimarisingoutofanalleged `  structuraldefectinplandesign(asdistinctfromastructural 6   defectinplanadministration)isnotcognizableunder_ERISA_Ԁ404.  \  Thedistrictcourtdidnotaddressthisargument,andneitherdo  2  we.WediscussthemeritsofPlaintiffs'independentclaimthat   theplans'useofarbitraryeligibilitycriteriaviolates_ERISA_'s   minimumparticipationstandards,_ERISA_Ԁ202,29U.S.C.1052,in d  Part_II.D._  $XXXXX=XXdd=      6    _=XXXdXd=Moreaccurately,Plaintiffsallegethat_GTE_Ԁdesignatedthem  as"temporary"employeesatthetimetheywerehiredandfailedto  reclassifythemas"regular"employeesatsomepointduringtheir \ employment.Becausethedispositiveissuedeterminingeligibility 2 forparticipationin_GTE_'s_ERISA_ԀplansisnotwhetherPlaintiffs X were"temporary"or"regular"employeesbutsimplywhetherthey . were"paiddirectly"bytheiremployingbusinessunit,wehave   construedPlaintiffs'claimaccordingly.*D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T ^ $XXXXX=XXdd=      1    _=XXXdXd=Thenamedplansinclude:_GTE_ԀEmployeeSavingsPlan,_GTE_  EmployeesMedicalPlans,_GTE_ԀEmployeesDentalPlans,_GTE_ԀRetirement  IncomePlans,_GTE_ԀTuitionReimbursementPlan,_GTE_ԀMatching \ ContributiontoEducationPlan,and_GTE_ԀPlanforGroupInsurance 2 LongTermDisabilityIncomeProtectionPlan.<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7N(X7  ?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7O(X7&  d dM)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7  ?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7O(X7M)2dxd0KS.SampleKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  %&()*+,-0 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\i)X(;3$2#  0  .3  0   9 $XXXXX=XXdd=      13    _=XXXdXd=Plaintiffsbelatedlyarguethatan_ERISA_Ԁplanmay,byitsown  terms,providethattheplanmustcomplywithTreasuryregulations  governingqualificationforpreferredtaxstatus.See_Bronk_,140 \ F.3dat1338(distinguishingplanscontainingexplicitprovisions 2 "thattheymustcomplywith_ERISA_,theInternalRevenueCodeand X TreasuryDepartmentregulationsgoverningtaxqualification").In . afootnoteintheiropeningbriefonappeal,Plaintiffsassertthat   _GTE_'s_ERISA_Ԁplans"stateanintenttocomplywiththetaxlaw.   Thus,theywouldbeconstructedtocomplywiththetaxlaw" `  (referring,presumably,tothosetaxlawsthatgovernqualification 6   forpreferredtaxstatus).Intheircomplaint,however,Plaintiffs  \  allegedonlythatonesetof_GTE_Ԁplans,the_GTE_ԀRetirementIncome  2  Plans,are"intendedtocomplywiththeTaxReformActof1986,   subsequentlegislation,andrelevantrulingsandregulations."At   oralargument,PlaintiffsassertedthatDefendants'failureto d  disclosethecompletelanguageofeach_GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplanprevented :  themfromdeterminingwhetheranyoftheplanscontainsucha `  requirement.Aswehavenoted,Plaintiffsdidnotseektocompel 6  disclosureofadditionalplandocuments.Seesupra,note2.More  importantly,Plaintiffshaveforfeitedtheargumentthat_GTE_'s  _ERISA_Ԁplansare,bytheirownterms,subjecttorulesgoverning \ qualificationforfavorabletaxtreatmentbyfailingtoraiseit 2 beforethedistrictcourt.See_Slade_,980F.2dat30.   2 $XXXXX=XXdd=      9    _ XXXXXX=XXXdXd=Plaintiffsdonotrenewtheirargument,madebeforethe  districtcourt,thatthestatuteoflimitationswastolledwhile  theyexhaustedadministrativeremedies.See_Edes_,288F.Supp.2d \ at6061.#XXXX XX#ԀInstead,PlaintiffsarguethatunderMassachusettslaw 2 thestatuteoflimitationsshouldbeequitablytolledbecausethey X reasonablyreliedon_GTE_'srepresentationsthatitwouldeventually . placethemon_GTE_'sdirectpayroll.Notonlydoesthecomplaint   failtoallegeanyfactssupportingthisargument,butPlaintiffs   haveforfeitedtheargumentthroughtheirfailuretoraiseit `  below.  XXXXXXUnitedStatesv._Slade_,980F.2d27,30(1stCir.1992) 6   ("Itisabedrockrulethatwhenapartyhasnotpresentedan  j  argumenttothedistrictcourt,[he]maynotunveilitinthecourt  @  ofappeals.").#XXXX XX#(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.cA. > $XXXXX=XXdd=      2    _=XXXdXd=Intheirmemorandum,PlaintiffsprotestedthatDefendantshad  disclosedonlyoneplan(the_GTE_ԀSavingsPlan),andonlysummary  plandescriptionsoftheother_GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplans.Asthedistrict \ courtnoted, XXXXXX"[_w]hile_Ԁplaintiffscomplainthatallplandocuments 2 havenotbeensubmitted,they[did]notfileamotiontocompel X  [disclosure]pursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.37(a)."#XXXX XXs#Ԁ_Edes_v._Verizon_  Communications,Inc.,288F.Supp.2d55,58n.4(D.Mass.2003). XXXXXXԀ  #XXXX XXY#AccordingtoDefendants'attorneydeclarationandexhibits, \ Defendantsdisclosedthe_GTE_ԀPlanforGroupInsurance,the_GTE_ԀPlan 2 forEmployees'Pensions,andtheLongTermDisabilityIncome X ProtectionPlaninadditiontothe_GTE_ԀSavingsPlan.(O$ q $XXXXX=XXdd=      7    =XXXdXd=_WegrantPlaintiffstheinferencethatParsons,whomthe  complaintallegeswasterminatedinAugust1998,continuedto  receivepaychecksthroughOctober1998,withinthethreeyears \ Y priortothefilingofthecomplaintonOctober10,2001.See   XXXXXXCloroxCo.P.R.,228F.3dat30(courtreviewingmotiontodismiss  pursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)mustgrantallreasonable \ inferencesintheplaintiff'sfavor).#XXXX XX\#ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(:2E$ !XApXXX  <:Default Para($pqsOA<< c v $XXXXX=XXdd=      3    _=XXXdXd=Plaintiffsdonotappealthedistrictcourt'sdismissalof  theirstatecommonlawclaim. _ $XXXXX=XXdd=      11    _=XXXdXd=_ERISA_Ԁ413alsocontainsanexceptionfor"fraudor  concealment,"neitherofwhichPlaintiffsallege,permittingan  actionto"becommencednotlaterthansixyearsafterthedateof \ discoveryofsuchbreachorviolation."29U.S.C.1113.  $XXXXX=XXdd=      4    _=XXXdXd="Where,ashere,'acomplaint'sfactualallegationsare  expresslylinkedtoandadmittedlydependentuponadocument  (theauthenticityofwhichisnotchallenged),thatdocument \ effectivelymergesintothepleadingsandthetrialcourtcan 2 reviewitindecidingamotiontodismissunderRule12(b)(6).'" X Perryv.NewEng.Bus.Serv.,Inc.,347F.3d343,345n.2(1stCir. . 2003)(quotingBeddallv.StateSt.Bank&TrustCo.,137F.3d12,   17(1stCir.1998)).  $XXXXX=XXdd=      5    _=XXXdXd=Similarly,intheiropeningbriefonappeal,Plaintiffs  "_assum[e_]that_GTE_'swelfareplansallhavesimilarcriteriafor  participation.Planbenefitsareavailabletoallactive_GTE_ \ employeeswhoarepaiddirectlyby_GTE_." 5 $XXXXX=XXdd=      12    _=XXXdXd=Defendantsdidnotarguebelow,nordotheyargueonappeal,  thatPlaintiffs'claimofbreachoffiduciarydutyisindependently  barredbythealternatesixyearstatuteoflimitationsin_ ERISA_  \ 413(1). !XXXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! X'XXXX X X'     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals N_   FortheFirstCircuit  Q~ N_ XXX Q~     `     h      p     A') ` dE< ` A   No.032162 K  @  RONALDR._EDES_,KEVINLYONS,JOHNPARSONS,  G  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,   @tt)v. O  @@ @ _VERIZON_ԀCOMMUNICATIONS,INC.,ETAL., K  @Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEU.S.DISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 4 @@*[Hon.PattiB.Saris,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before !q @@((Torruella,Lynch,andLipez,CircuitJudges.  A') ` dE<N ` A O "       Shannon_Liss_ԄRiordan,withwhomEarlD.Munroe,Munroe&Chew, 4!$ MichaelM._McArdle_,andLawOfficesofMichaelM._McArdle_wereon  "Z% brief,forappellant. "0&   JeffreyG._Huvelle_,withwhomFrederickG._Sandstrom_, #' Covington&Burling,Marc_Schoenecker_,and_Verizon_ԀServicesGroup $( wereonbrief,forappellee. b% ) *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '4#,'4#  SIH(#- @38565@SAugust2,_2005_ )n$/  RHC)D%0" @38565 @ R(H(#1  (  * !   |-(4?   8XXXdd8*,X` XX*=XXXdd=aOY ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .PlaintiffsappellantsRonaldR.  _Edes_,KevinLyons,andJohnParsonsappealthedismissaloftheir x claimsagainstDefendantsappellees_Verizon_ԀCommunications,Inc., $t etal.,undertheEmployeeRetirementIncomeSecurityActof1974,   29_U.S.C_Ԁ10011461,asamended("_ERISA_").Plaintiffsallegethat |  Defendantsviolated_ERISA_Ԁbyrelegatingthemtothepayrollsof ( x  thirdpartypayrollagencies,thereby:(1)wrongfullydenyingthem $  benefitsunder_ERISA_Ԁplans;(2)interferingwiththeirattainment   ofplanparticipationrights;(3)breachingfiduciarydutiesowed ,|  tothem;(4)failingtomeet_ERISA_'sminimumparticipation ( standards;and(5)usingarbitrary,unwrittenplaneligibility  criteria.Weaffirmthedistrictcourt'sdecisiontodismisseach 0 oftheseclaimspursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). ,    I.   h ` Asallegedinthecomplaint,Plaintiffswerehiredby_GTE_ P ServiceCorporation("_GTE_"),abusinessunitof_GTE_ԀCorporation L (now_Verizon_ԀCommunications,Inc.),toworkinits_Danvers_,   Massachusetts,officeinoraroundApril1994.AlthoughPlaintiffs T!" werehireddirectlyby_GTE_,eachwastoldtosignonwithoneof #P$ twoindependentpayrollagencies,FISCInc.or_BeneTemps_ԀInc.,who $& issuedPlaintiffs'paychecksduringtheentireperiodoftheir X&!( employmentwith_GTE_.Plaintiffsreceivednopaychecksorbenefits (T#* from_GTE_Ԁduringtheirtenure.Inallotherrespects,Plaintiffs )%, weretreatedlike"regular,"fulltime_GTE_Ԁemployees.In \+&. _particular,Plaintiffsreceivedthesametraining,performance  reviews,andaccessto_GTE_Ԁfacilitiesasotheremployees;were \ invitedtocorporatefunctions,staffmeetings,andcommittee X servicejustasotheremployeeswere;andwereexplicitly   instructedtoidentifythemselvestooutsidersas"_GTE_Ԁemployees" `  ratherthanastemporaryemployees.Inshort,accordingtothe  \  complaint,Plaintiffswere"thoroughlyintegratedin_GTE_'s   workforce." d   ` InAugust1998,_GTE_ԀterminatedParsons'employmentin `  preparationforclosingthe_Danvers_Ԁfacility.InDecember1998,   _GTE_Ԁterminated_Edes_'andLyons'employment.OnMay3,1999, h Plaintiffsmadedemandsfor_ERISA_Ԁplanbenefitsonthe_GTE_ԀHuman d ResourcesDepartment._GTE_ԀdeniedtheclaimsonSeptember8,1999  onthegroundthatPlaintiffshadnotbeenemployedby_GTE_,and l offeredPlaintiffsnoadministrativereviewoptions. h  ` OnOctober10,2001,Plaintiffsfiledaputativeclass  actioncomplaintinfederaldistrictcourtagainst_Verizon_ p  Communications,Inc.(formerly_GTE_ԀCorporation),sevennamed_GTE_ !l" _ERISA_Ԁbenefitsplansandtheiradministratorsandfiduciaries,_: #  1      _Ԁand "$ "_GTE_ԀJohnDoeUnknownPlans110."Plaintiffsalleged,on t$& informationandbelief,thatbecauseeligibilitytoparticipatein  &p!( _GTE_'s_ERISA_Ԁplanswas"expresslylimitedtoemployeeswhowerepaid  directlybyaparticipatingbusinessunit,"Defendantshadviolated \ theirrightsunder_ERISA_Ԁandstatecommonlaw. X  ` OnFebruary20,2002,Defendantsmovedtodismisseachof   Plaintiffs'claimspursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),arguing, `  interalia,thattheirclaimsofinterferencewithattainmentof  \  participationrightsandbreachoffiduciarydutyweretimebarred   andtheirstatecommonlawclaimpreempted.Afterahearingonthe d  motion,thecourtstayeddiscoverybutdidnotstayautomatic `  disclosure,notingthatDefendantshadyettodisclosetheplans'   actuallanguage.OnSeptember19,2002,thecourtissuedanorder h denyingDefendants'motiontodismisswithoutprejudicetoits d renewal"oncethepreciselanguageofthetermsofeligibilityis  produced."InOctober2002,Defendantssubmittedanattorney l declarationwithexhibitsstatingthattheyhaddisclosedplan h documentstoPlaintiffsinMayandJune2002.Afterthecourt  permittedPlaintiffstotakeadepositiontodeterminewhenthe p  relevanteligibilitycriteriahadbeenincludedin_GTE_'s_ERISA_ !l" plans,Defendantsfiledamemoranduminfurthersupportoftheir "$ motiontodismissinJanuary2003.Plaintiffsfiledamemorandum t$& infurtheroppositiontothemotion._k #  2      _  &p!(  ` OnJuly25,2003,thedistrictcourtissuedamemorandum  andordergrantingDefendants'motiontodismissthecomplaint. \ ThecourtheldthatPlaintiffs'claimsofinterferencewithplan X participationrightsandbreachoffiduciarydutyweretimebarred   andthattheirstatecommonlawclaimwaspreemptedby_ERISA_._Edes_ `  v._Verizon_ԀCommunications,Inc.,288F.Supp.2d55,59,6162,64  \  (D.Mass.2003).ThedistrictcourtalsoconcludedthatPlaintiffs   otherwisefailedtostateclaimsforwhichreliefcouldbegranted. d  Id.at5859,64.Plaintiffstimelyappealed.u #  3       `    II.    -  ` Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourt'sdecisiontodismiss  acomplaintpursuanttoRule12(b)(6),"acceptingallwellpleaded 0 factsastrueanddrawingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe , plaintiff."CloroxCo.P.R.v.Proctor&GambleCommercialCo.,  228F.3d24,30(1stCir.2000).A"complaintisproperly 4 dismissedonlywhentheallegationsaresuchthat'theplaintiff 0 canprovenosetoffactstosupport[the]claimforrelief.'"Id.   (quotingRockwellv.CapeCodHosp.,26F.3d254,260(1stCir. 8!" 1994))."Grantingamotiontodismissbasedonalimitations "4$ defenseisentirelyappropriatewhenthepleader'sallegations  leavenodoubtthatanassertedclaimistimebarred."_LaChapelle_ \ v.BerkshireLifeIns.Co.,142F.3d507,509(1stCir.1998). X  c(83\ A.0 ` EntitlementtoBenefitsUnderthePlans  ` (#` (#  ` Plaintiffsarguethatthedistrictcourtimproperly |  dismissedtheirclaimofentitlementtoplanbenefitsunder_ERISA_ ( x  502(a)(1)(B),29U.S.C.1102(a)(1)(B),forlackofstanding. $  See,e.g.,Abrahamv.ExxonCorp.,85F.3d1126,1129(5thCir.   1996)("Whetheranemployeehasstandingasa'participant' ,|  depends,notonwhetherheisactuallyentitledtobenefits,buton ( whetherhehasacolorableclaimthathewillprevailinasuitfor  benefits.").Thedistrictcourtmadenoreferenceinitsdecision 0 tostanding.Rather,basedontheplandocumentssubmittedby , Defendants,thecourtconcludedthat"bythetermsoftheplans,  [_P]laintiffs_Ԁarenotentitledtobenefitsbecausethey[were]not 4 paiddirectlyby_GTE_,butinstead[were]paidbytemporarypayroll 0 agencies."_Edes_,288F.Supp.2dat58(footnoteomitted).~ #  4      ׀    ` Plaintiffsalsoinsistthattheymayproceedwiththeir 8!" claimbecausetheywerecommonlawemployeesof_GTE_Ԁbyvirtueof "4$ theirfull"_integrat[ion_]in_GTE_'sworkforce."Whetherornotthis  isso,thedistrictcourtcorrectlyconcludedthat"[_t]he_Ԁfactthat \ [_P]laintiffs_Ԁmaybecommonlawemployeesisnotbyitselfenoughto X stateavalidclaimforbenefitsunder_ERISA_."_Edes_,288F.Supp.   2dat5859.Inanopinionpublishedseveralmonthsafterthe `  districtcourtrendereditsdecision,apanelofthiscircuit  \  reachedthesameconclusion,statingthataplaintiff"mayhavea   plausibleargumentthathewasacommonlawemployee...,butit d  isthelanguageofthePlan,notcommonlawstatus,thatcontrols." `  _Kolling_v.Am.PowerConversionCorp.,347F.3d11,14(1stCir.   2003). h  ` Plaintiffs'owncomplaintalleges,andtheplandocuments d submittedbyDefendantsconfirm,that_GTE_'s_ERISA_Ԁplansexplicitly  excludefromparticipationemployeeswhowerenot"paiddirectly" l by_GTE_,withoutregardfortheircommonlawemploymentstatus._ #  5      _Ԁ h Plaintiffsfurtherallegethattheywereinfactnot"paid  directly"by_GTE_,butbythirdpartypayrollagencies.Because p  they"canprovenosetoffactstosupport[their]claim"for !l" benefitsunderthe_ERISA_Ԁplans,Rockwell,26F.3dat260,the "$ districtcourtproperlydismissedPlaintiffs'claimunder_ERISA_ t$& 502(a)(1)(B).  &p!(  B.0 ` InterferencewithAttainmentofPlanParticipationRights ` (#` (#  ` PlaintiffsallegethatDefendants_misclassified_Ԁthemas x offpayrollemployeesforthepurposeofinterferingwiththeir $t attainmentofplanparticipationrightsinviolationof_ERISA_   510,29U.S.C.1140.Thatstatuteprovides,inrelevantpart: |    Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersonto ( x  discharge,fine,suspend,expel,discipline,  N  ordiscriminateagainstaparticipantor $  beneficiaryforexercisinganyrighttowhich   heisentitled[under_ERISA_Ԁoran_ERISA_Ԁplan],   orforthepurposeofinterferingwiththe V  attainmentofanyrighttowhichsuch ,|  participantmaybecomeentitled. R oC aC SC29U.S.C.1140.   ` ThedistrictcourtheldthatPlaintiffscouldnotstate Z aclaimforreliefunderthisprovisionfortwoindependent V reasons."First,anemployermayhireemployeesundertermsthat  renderthemineligibletoreceivebenefitsgiventootheremployees ^ withoutviolating[_ERISA_]510."_Edes_,288F.Supp.2dat59.   Z  Plaintiffsarguethatthedistrictcourt'sanalysisignoredthe " languagein_ERISA_Ԁ510prohibitingemployersfromdiscriminating ~ ! againstaparticipantorbeneficiary"forthepurposeof *"z# interferingwiththeattainmentofanyrighttowhichsuch #&% participantmaybecomeentitled"underan_ERISA_Ԁplan.29U.S.C. % ' 1140(emphasisadded).Plaintiffsarguethatwhetherornot .'~") Defendantspermissiblyexcludedthemfromplaneligibilityatthe (*$+ timetheywerehiredasoffpayrollemployees,Defendantsfailedto *%- movethemtothe_GTE_Ԁpayrollaftertheywerehired,"forthe 2,'/ purposeofinterferingwiththeattainment"ofparticipationrights  towhichtheyshouldhavebecomeentitled._ #  6      _Ԁ \  ` Weneednotdecidethecircumstances,ifany,underwhich X employeeswhoareineligiblefor_ERISA_Ԁbenefitsatthetimeof   hiringmaystateaclaimunder_ERISA_Ԁ510,basedonadefendant's `  failuretoreclassifythem,becausethedistrictcourtproperly  \  dismissedtheclaimonthealternategroundthatitwastime   barred.See_Edes_,288F.Supp.2dat59.Thedistrictcourt d  determinedtheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsbyreferenceto `  statelaw.SeeMuldoonv.C.J.Muldoon&Sons,278F.3d31,32   (1stCir.2002)(percuriam)("BecauseCongressdidnotprovidea h statuteoflimitationsinthe_ERISA_Ԁstatuteforsection510claims, d federalcourtsmustapplythelimitationsperiodofthestatelaw  causeofactionmostanalogoustothefederalclaim.").The l claimedwronghereisthe_misclassification_ԀofPlaintiffsinApril h 1994whentheywentonthepayrolloftheagencyratherthanthe  company.Consequently,thedistrictcourtproperlyapplied p  Massachusetts'threeyearstatuteoflimitationsfortorts,Mass. !l" Gen.Lawsch.260,2A,toPlaintiffs'claimunder_ERISA_Ԁ510. "$  ` Thedistrictcourtnextappliedfederallawtodetermine  thedateonwhichPlaintiffs'claimaccruedandstartedtheclock \ onthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations._Tolle_v.CarrollTouch, X Inc.,977F.2d1129,1138(7thCir.1992)(federalcommonlaw   determinesdateofaccrualofcauseofactionunder_ERISA_Ԁ510); `  N.Cal.RetailClerksUnionsv.JumboMarkets,Inc.,906F.2d1371,  \  1372(9thCir.1990)(federalcommonlawdetermineswhencauseof   actionbytrustfundstorecoveremployer'scontributionaccrues d  under_ERISA_).Foraclaimunder_ERISA_Ԁ510,"itisthe `  [challengedemployment]decisionandtheparticipant'sdiscoveryof   thisdecisionthatdictatesaccrual"ofPlaintiffs'causeof h action._Tolle_,977F.2dat114041.Applyingthisruleinlight d ofPlaintiffs'allegationthattheyweredirectedtosignonwith  thirdpartypayrollagenciesattheirtimeofhire,thedistrict l courtconcludedthat"[_t]he_Ԁstatuteoflimitationsclockbeganon h [_P]laintiffs_'claimwhen[_P]laintiffs_ԀwerehiredinApril1994and  classifiedasemployeesofatemporarypayrollagencyinsteadofas p  regularemployeesof_GTE_."_Edes_,288F.Supp.2dat59. !l"  ` Plaintiffsarguethateveniftheydiscoveredthefactual "$ basisfortheirclaimasearlyasApril1994,theircomplaint t$& allegesacontinuingtortthattolledthestatuteoflimitations  &p!( untiltheyreceivedtheirlastpaychecks.o #  7      ׀Underthistheory,in '#* Plaintiffs'words,"[_e]very_Ԁtime[Plaintiffs]receivedapaycheck  from[a]thirdpartypayrollcompanywhilestillbeingdenied \ benefitsunderanyofthe_GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplanstheywereincurringnew X injury,asaresultof[Defendants']continuingwrongfulbehavior."   Asauthorityforthisargument,PlaintiffsciteDoev.Townof `  _Blandford_,525N.E.2d403(Mass.1988),acaseinwhichaclaimant  \  undertheMassachusettsTortClaimsActallegedthecontinuing   tortsofnegligentsupervisionandfailuretofire,whichtolled d  thetimeperiodforpresentmentofherclaimtoanexecutive `  officerofapublicemployerasrequiredbystatute.    ` Evenassumingforthesakeofargumentthat h Massachusetts'continuingtortdoctrineisapplicabletoafederal d claimunder_ERISA_Ԁ510(anissuewedonotdecide),_ #  8      _ԀPlaintiffs  havenotallegedacontinuingtort.WhilePlaintiffsmayhavefelt l theongoingeffectsoftheirineligibilityfor_ERISA_Ԁbenefitsevery h timetheyreceivedapaycheckfromathirdpartypayrollagency,  Plaintiffs'ownallegationsmakeclearthatDefendants'wrongful  conduct,ifany,involvedthe_misclassification_ԀofPlaintiffsas \ offpayrollemployeesattheirtimeofhireinApril1994.See X Berryv.AllstateIns.Co.,252F.Supp.2d336,346(E.D.Tex.   2003)("Allstate'srefusaltoallowPlaintiffstoparticipatein `  itsbenefitplanswasthesingleactthatservedasthebasisfor  \  theallegedwrongfuldiscrimination."),_aff'd_,84Fed._Appx_.442   (5thCir.2004).ThedistrictcourtproperlydismissedPlaintiffs' d  _ERISA_Ԁ510claimastimebarred.b #  9      ׀ `   C.0 ` BreachesofFiduciaryDuty  ` (#` (#  ` Plaintiffsallegethatthedefendantplanfiduciaries  breachedtheirfiduciarydutiesinviolationof_ERISA_Ԁ404,29 0 U.S.C.1104,by:(1)_misclassifying_ԀPlaintiffsasoffpayroll , employeesineligibletoparticipatein_GTE_'s_ERISA_Ԁplansand(2)  creatingastructuraldefectinthedesignoftheplansthroughthe 4 useofarbitraryeligibilitycriteriatoexcludeadisproportionate 0 numberofemployeesfromplanparticipationinviolationof_ERISA_'s   minimumparticipationstandards._ #  10      _ԀThedistrictcourtheldthat  Plaintiffs'claimswerebarredbythe_ERISA_Ԁstatuteoflimitations \ applicabletobreachesoffiduciaryduty._ERISA_Ԁ413,29U.S.C. X 1113,prohibitscommencementofsuchclaims"aftertheearlier   of": `     X%&()*+,-( 08c(1)sixyearsafter(A)thedateofthelast  \  actionwhichconstitutedapartofthebreach  2  orviolation,or(B)inthecaseofan   omission,thelatestdateonwhichthe   fiduciarycouldhavecuredthebreachor d  violation,or :  (2)threeyearsaftertheearliestdateon 6 whichtheplaintiffhadactualknowledgeof   thebreachorviolation....  ll k k9,X` Xp,X` X9(emphasisadded)._z #  11      _ԀPursuantto413,"_ERISA_Ԁprovidesthatclaims > basedonabreachoffiduciarydutymustbebroughtwithinsix : yearsofthebreachor'thelatestdateonwhichthefiduciary  couldhavecuredthebreachorviolation,'andwithinthreeyears \ ofthedateonwhichtheplaintiffhadactualknowledgeofthe X breach."Watsonv.DeaconessWalthamHosp.,298F.3d102,118(1st   Cir.2002).ThedistrictcourtfoundPlaintiffs'claimbarredby `  thethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsbecause"[_P]laintiffs_Ԁdid  \  haveactualknowledgeoftheirstatusin1994,yetfailedto   commencetheircaseuntil2001."_Edes_,288F.Supp.2d55,61._ #  12      _Ԁ d   ` Plaintiffsargueonappealthat"actualknowledgeofa `  breachorviolation"withinthemeaningof_ERISA_Ԁ413"requiresa   showingthatplaintiffsactuallyknewnotonlyoftheeventsthat h occurredwhichconstitutethebreachorviolationbutalsothat d thoseeventssupportedaclaimofbreachoffiduciarydutyor  violationunder_ERISA_."_Int'l_ԀUnionofElec.,Elec.,Salaried, l Mach.&FurnitureWorkersv.MurataErieN.Am.,Inc.,980F.2d h 889,900(3dCir.1992);seealso_Maher_v._Strachan_ԀShippingCo.,  68F.3d951,954(5thCir.1995)(applyingThirdCircuittest). p  Theissueofdefining"actualknowledge"hasvexedthecircuits. !l" Thebriefingpurportstodivineaclearcircuitsplit.Onthat "$ view,asnoted,theThirdandFifthCircuitsfollowarulethatfor t$& an_ERISA_Ԁ404claimtoaccrue,aplaintiffmustknowofnotonly  &p!( allthefactsandeventsconstitutingthefiduciarybreach,but  also"thatthoseeventssupportedaclaimofbreachoffiduciary \ dutyorviolationunder_ERISA_."Murata,980F.2dat900;seealso X _Maher_,68F.3dat954(quotingMurata).Bycontrast,theSixth,   Seventh,Ninth,andEleventhCircuitsaresaidtohaveahardand `  fastrulethataplaintiffneedonlyhavehad"knowledgeofthe  \  factsortransactionthatconstitutedtheallegedviolation"and   notknowledgethatthosefactssupportalegalclaimtostart d  thelimitationperiodrunning.Martinv.Consultants&_Adm'rs_, `  Inc.,966F.2d1078,1086(7thCir.1992);seealsoWrightv.   _Heyne_,349F.3d321,330(6thCir.2003);_Blanton_v._Anzalone_,760 h F.2d989,992(9thCir.1985).AccordBrockv._Nellis_,809F.2d d 753,755(11thCir.1987).TheSecondandD.C.Circuits,onthis  scale,havehybridanalyses.See_Caputo_v._Pfizer_,Inc.,267F.3d l 181,193(2dCir.2001)(plaintiffneedhave"knowledgeofall h materialfactsnecessarytounderstandthatan_ERISA_Ԁfiduciaryhas  breachedhisorherduty,"but"neednothaveknowledgeofthe p  relevantlaw")(citing_Maher_,68F.3dat954;_Gluck_v.Unisys !l" Corp.,960F.2d1168,1177(3dCir.1992);and_Blanton_,760F.2dat "$ 992);Finkv._Nat'l_Ԁ_Sav_.&TrustCo.,772F.2d951,957(D.C.Cir. t$& 1985)("Thedisclosureofatransactionthatisnotinherentlya  &p!( statutorybreachoffiduciaryduty...cannotcommunicatethe '#*  existenceofanunderlyingbreach."). x)$, aOY a a   ` Wethinkthedifferencesareexaggerated,andthe   positionsofthecircuits,asevidencedbyhowtheyapplythe \ "rules"tothefacts,aremuchmorenuanced.Further,evenifthe X languagesetforthabovewereanaccuratedepiction,wewouldfind   ourselvesinthemiddle. `   ` Settlingonadescriptionoftheappropriatestandardto  \  applyisacomplexventure.Priorto1987,_ERISA_Ԁ413also   "containedaconstructiveknowledgeprovision,statingthatthe d  threeyearlimitationsperiodbeganwhenaplaintiff'could `  reasonablybeexpectedtohaveobtainedknowledge'fromcertain   reportsfiledwiththeSecretaryofLabor."Martin,966F.2dat h 1085n.6(citingearlierversionandlegislativehistory).Given d thisexplicitstatutoryalteration,astheSeventhCircuithas  recognized,"actualknowledgemustbedistinguishedfrom l constructiveknowledge"inapplying_ERISA_Ԁ413.Id.at1086.Yet h "[_i]t_Ԁisdifficulttosayintheabstractpreciselywhat  constitutes'actualknowledge'ofa'breachorviolation.'"Id. p  Wheretheallegedbreacharisesoutofafinancialtransaction !l" involving_ERISA_Ԁplanfunds,determiningwherethedistinction "$ betweenactualandconstructiveknowledgeliesinaparticularcase t$& maydepend"onthelevelofgeneralityemployedincharacterizing  &p!( thetransactionatissue,"whichmaydepend,inturn,onan '#*  examinationof"thecomplexityoftheunderlyingfactual x)$, transaction,thecomplexityofthelegalclaimandthe  egregiousnessoftheallegedviolation."Id. \   ` Weagreewiththeobservationthattheprimarypurposeof X astatuteoflimitationsisto"prevent[]plaintiffsfromsleeping   ontheirrightsand[to]prohibit[]theprosecutionofstale `  claims."Wright,349F.3dat330.Theamendmentto_ERISA_Ԁ413  \  meansthatknowledgeoffactscannotbeattributedtoplaintiffs   whohavenoactualknowledgeofthem.Wealsoagreethatthere d  cannotbeactualknowledgeofaviolationforpurposesofthe `  limitationperiodunlessaplaintiffknows"theessentialfactsof   thetransactionorconductconstitutingtheviolation."Martin, h 966F.2dat1086.And,liketheMartincourt,werecognizethat d determiningthemeaningofcomplextransactionsmaytakesometime;  mereknowledgeoffactsindicatingthat"'somethingwasawry'"does l notalwaysmeanthereisactualknowledgeofaviolation.Id. h (quotingRadiologyCtr.,S.C.v._Stifel_,_Nicolaus_Ԁ&Co.,919F.2d  1216,1221(7thCir.1990)).Ontheotherhand,wedonotthink p  Congressintendedtheactualknowledgerequirementtoexcuse !l" willfulblindnessbyaplaintiff.Seeid.at1086n.7. "$  ` Thequestionofwhenthereis"actualknowledgeofa t$& violation,"asMartinnotes,isonewhichmaychangewithdifferent  &p!( facts.Hereweneednotgointothepermutationsofthatquestion, '#* becauseitisclearthatPlaintiffshadtherequisite"actual x)$, knowledge"inApril1994.Plaintiffs'claimofbreachoffiduciary $+t&. dutyarisesnotfromanintricatefinancialtransaction,cf.,e.g.,  id.at108788(analyzingclaimagainstfundtrusteesforuseof \ impropercontractbiddingprocessasviolationofdutytoeliminate X imprudentinvestments),butfrom_GTE_'sdecisiontohirePlaintiffs   withoutrenderingthemeligibletoparticipateinits_ERISA_Ԁplans. `  Inessence,PlaintiffsallegethatDefendantshadafiduciaryduty  \  toclassifythemaseligibleforplanparticipation,andtodesign   theirplansaccordingly,basedontheirstatusascommonlaw d  employees,regardlessoftheplans'actualeligibilitycriteria. `   ` Asthefactsallegedintheircomplaintestablish,   PlaintiffsknewinApril1994thattheywerenotclassifiedas h employeeson_GTE_'sdirectpayroll.Atthesametime,Plaintiffs d receivedno_ERISA_Ԁbenefitsfrom_GTE_.Thesefactsestablishthat  PlaintiffshadactualknowledgethatifDefendantshadafiduciary l dutytoclassifythemaseligiblefor_ERISA_Ԁplanparticipation h and/ortodesigntheirplansaccordingly,theyhadbreachedthat  duty.Accordingly,Plaintiffsneednothavehadactualknowledge p  oftheplans'eligibilitycriteriatostartthestatuteof !l" limitationsrunning,andtheirclaimofbreachoffiduciarydutyin "$ violationof_ERISA_Ԁ404,filedmorethanthreeyearslater,is t$& timebarredunder_ERISA_Ԁ413.  &p!(  D. ` Violationof_ERISA_'sMinimumParticipationStandards '#*   ` _ERISA_Ԁsetsminimumparticipationstandardsintheformof )$, limitsonaplan'simpositionofageorlengthofservicerelated @+&. conditionsofparticipation,see_ERISA_Ԁ202(a)(1),29U.S.C.  1052(a)(1),onanyemployeewhois"otherwiseentitledto \ participateintheplan,"29U.S.C.1052(a)(4).Aprovisionof X theCodeofFederalRegulations,26_C.F.R._Ԁ1.410(a)3(e)(1),   whichismadeapplicableto_ERISA_'sstatutoryminimumparticipation `  standardsunder_ERISA_Ԁ3002_(c_),29U.S.C.1202_(c_),clarifies  \  that"[_p]lan_Ԁprovisionswhichhavetheeffectofrequiringanage   orservicerequirement...willbetreatedasiftheyimposedan d  ageorservicerequirement,"therebypreventingaplanfromevading `  _ERISA_'sminimumparticipationstandardsthroughcreativeplan   design.Apartfromtheselimitations,"[_s]o_Ԁlongasaplandoes h notdiscriminatebasedonageorlengthofservice,nothingin d _ERISA_Ԁrequiresaplantoextendbenefitstoeverycommonlaw  employee."_Kolling_,347F.3dat14. l  ` Plaintiffsmakeacursoryattempttoarguethatthe_GTE_ h _ERISA_Ԁplans'eligibilitycriterionwhetheranemployeeis"paid  directly"orbyathirdpartypayrollagencyisaconditionof p  participationimposedonemployeeswhoare"otherwiseentitledto !l" participate"that"_ha[s_]theeffect"ofaminimumservice "$ requirementexceedingthepermissiblelimitsof_ERISA_'sminimum t$& participationstandards.UnderPlaintiffs'theory,"[_s]ince_Ԁ_GTE_  &p!( couldchooseatanytime(ornever)"toplacePlaintiffson_GTE_'s '#* ownpayroll,"what_GTE_Ԁhascreatedareexclusionsofuncertainand x)$, arbitraryduration."Evenifthisisso,Plaintiffs'indefinite $+t&. exclusionfromplaneligibilitysimplyrendersthememployeeswho  arenot(andmayneverbe)"entitledtoparticipateinthe \ _plan[s_],"29U.S.C.1052(a)(4)notemployeeswhoareotherwise X eligiblebutwhoareneverthelessexcludedpendingcompletionofa   specificperiodofserviceexceedingtheminimumpermittedunder `  _ERISA_.  \   ` DespitePlaintiffs'attempttohitchtheirclaimto   _ERISA_'sminimumparticipationstandardslimitingtheuseofageor d  lengthofservicerelatedconditionsofparticipation,theirtrue `  complaintremainsthatthe_GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplansusearbitrarycriteria   toestablishanemployee'sthresholdeligibilityforplan h participationacomplaintthathasnothingtodowith_ERISA_'s d minimumparticipationstandards.Indeed,Plaintiffsidentifyno  statutoryprovisionthatprohibitstheuseofsucharbitrary l eligibilitycriteria.Rather,PlaintiffsrelyonaTreasury h regulation,26_C.F.R._Ԁ1.410(b)4(b),whichsetsforthonemethod  bywhichan_ERISA_Ԁplanmayvoluntarilysatisfycertainrequirements p  inordertoqualifyforpreferentialtaxtreatment.See26U.S.C. !l" 410(b);26_C.F.R._Ԁ1.410(b)2(b). "$  ` Under1.410(b)4(b), t$&   [aplan]classificationisestablishedbythe  &p!( employerinaccordancewiththisparagraph(b) &F") ifandonlyif,basedonallthefactsand '#* circumstances,theclassificationis (#+ reasonableandisestablishedunderobjective x)$, businesscriteriathatidentifythecategory N*%- ofemployeeswhobenefitundertheplan. $+t&. Reasonableclassificationsgenerallyinclude +J'/ specifiedjobcategories,natureof  compensation(i.e.,salariedorhourly),  geographiclocation,andsimilarbonafide \ businesscriteria.Anenumerationof 2 employeesbynameorotherspecificcriteria X havingsubstantiallythesameeffectasan . enumerationbynameisnotconsidereda   reasonableclassification.     (emphasesadded.)AccordingtoPlaintiffs,the_GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplans' 6   useofarbitrarydistinctionsbetweenemployeeswhoare"paid  2  directly"andthosewhoarepaidbythirdpartypayrollagencies   has"substantiallythesameeffectasanenumerationbyname"and :  "isnotconsideredareasonableclassification...established 6 underobjectivebusinesscriteria"withinthemeaningofthe  regulation.Onthisbasis,PlaintiffsarguethatDefendants > impermissiblyexcludedthemfromplaneligibility. :  ` Therearetwoproblemswiththisargument.Evenif  Plaintiffsarerightthatthe_GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplansviolatethis B regulation(ajudgmentwedonotmake),Plaintiffsthemselves > recognizethat1.410(b)4(b)isnotincorporatedinto_ERISA_.  Henceaviolationofthisregulationcannotbeaviolationof_ERISA_ F ! throughincorporation.NordoesXXXX XX# XXXXXXG#1.410(b)4(b)confersubstantive !B# rightson_ERISA_Ԁplanparticipantsorwouldbeparticipants #% independentof_ERISA_'sstatutoryprovisions.Thedistrictcourt J% ' concludedthat,"[_w]hile_Ԁ_GTE_'sclassificationmaywellbe &F") unreasonableandarbitraryundertheTreasuryregulations,... (#+  thisfailuretocomplywiththetaxregulationsdoesnotpermitthe N*%- Courttorewritetheplan."_Edes_,288F.Supp.2dat64.Asthe  FifthCircuitreasonedinAbraham,85F.3dat1131: \   [_t]he_Ԁ[Treasury]regulationspurporttodono X morethandeterminewhetheraplanisa . qualifiedtaxplan.Failuretomeetthe   requirementsofthoseregulationsresultsin   thelossofabeneficialtaxstatus;itdoes `  notpermitacourttorewritetheplanto 6   includeadditionalemployees.TheTreasury  \  regulationsdonotcreatesubstantiverights  2  under_ERISA_Ԁthatwouldpermittherelief   [plaintiff]requests.   ܻ λ Accord_Bronk_v.MountainStatesTel.&Tel.,Inc.,140F.3d1335, :  1338(10thCir.1998);_Montesano_v.XeroxCorp.,117F.Supp.2d 6 147,162(D.Conn.2000),_aff'd_Ԁinpartand_rev'd_Ԁonanunrelated  ground,256F.3d86,89(2dCir.2001).Plaintiffsthereforefail > tostateaclaimunder_ERISA_ԀbasedonDefendants'allegedviolation : of26_C.F.R._Ԁ1.410(b)4(b)or,inthealternative,underthat  regulationstandingalone._` #  13      _ B  E.0 ` LackofWrittenPlanEligibilityCriteria ` (#` (#  ` PlaintiffsarguethatDefendantsareinviolationof x _ERISA_Ԁ402,29U.S.C.1102(a)(1),whichrequiresthat"[_e]very_ $t employeebenefitplanshallbeestablishedandmaintainedpursuant   toawritteninstrument,"becauseeligibilityforparticipationin |  _GTE_Ԁ_ERISA_Ԁplanscannotbedeterminedwithoutrecoursetopayroll ( x  liststhatarenotpartoftheplandocumentsthemselves.The $  statutoryrequirementthatplantermsbesetforthinwriting   servesthepurposeof"_ensur[ing_]thatparticipantsknowtheir ,|  rightsandobligationsundertheplan,andtoprovidesomedegree ( ofcertaintyintheadministrationofbenefits."XXXX XX_Fenton_v.John  HancockMut.Life.Ins.Co.,400F.3d83,8889(1stCir.2005)# XXXXXX# 0 (citationsomitted),petitionforcert.filed,2005WL1656497 , (U.S.July13,2005)(No.0580)(presentingquestionwhether  districtcourtproperlyconsideredsummaryplandescriptionsin 4 reviewofadministrator'sdenialofbenefits).Plaintiffsargue 0 thattheplans'arbitrarydistinctionbetweenemployeeswhoare   "paiddirectly"andthosewhoarepaidbythirdpartypayroll 8!" agenciesevadesthisrequirementbecauseitfailstoestablish "4$ objectivecriteriafordeterminingplaneligibility.Tothe $& contrary,asthedistrictcourtstated,the"plandocumentsspecify <&!( 'objectivecriteria'foreligibility:whetherornotemployeesare  paiddirectlyby_GTE_."_Edes_,288F.Supp.2dat64.Theplan \ documentsthusprovideadequatenoticeofparticipationrights X basedonanemployee'sreadilydiscernablepayrollstatus,andthe   districtcourtproperlyheldthatPlaintiffsfailedtostatea `  claimforaviolationof_ERISA_Ԁ402.  \     III.     ` BecausePlaintiffs'claimsofinterferencewiththeir   attainmentofplanparticipationrightsandbreachoffiduciary ,|  dutyunder_ERISA_Ԁ510and404aretimebarred,andbecause ( Plaintiffshaveotherwisefailedtostateclaimsforwhichrelief  maybegranted,thedecisionofthedistrictcourtdismissingthe 0 complaintpursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)is affirmed.  ,  ` Soordered.