Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PENSION AND BENEFIT PLANS—9th Cir.: Employer avoids withdrawal liability for pension contributions since MPPAA’s entertainment exception applied, (Jan 7, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Based on the unambiguous text of the MPPAA’s entertainment exception, the appeals court declined an invitation to read in a minimum entertainment-work requirement.

Holding that there is no minimum amount of entertainment work required for an individual to be an “employee in the entertainment industry” under the MPPAA, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a pension trust regarding an employer’s liability for withdrawal liability for pension contributions. From 2008 to 2016, the employer contributed to the trust’s plan on behalf of stagehands for its theatrical production of Jersey Boys. In September 2016, the musical closed, and the employer stopped contributing to the plan. Under a plain reading of the text of the entertainment exception, an individual who performs work in the entertainment industry is an “employee in the entertainment industry.” The text does not say that an individual’s work must be “substantially” or “primarily” in the entertainment industry to qualify—any amount of entertainment work suffices (Nevada Resort Association—International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the US and Canada Local 720 Pension Trust v. JB Viva Vegas, LP, Nos. 24-2791 and 24-3047 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026)).

Withdrawal liability. The employer sued the pension trust to challenge withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). The employer argued that the trust primarily covers “employees in the entertainment industry,” and that it qualifies for the entertainment exception to withdrawal liability.

The MPPAA amended ERISA to impose liability on employers that withdraw from multiemployer pension plans. But an exemption from withdrawal liability exists for employers contributing to plans that primarily cover “employees in the entertainment industry.” The parties dispute whether individuals who perform any amount of work in the entertainment industry qualify as “employees in the entertainment industry” under the MPPAA.

The trust administers a multiemployer pension benefit plan that covers employees performing convention and/or entertainment work in southern Nevada. The MPPAA defines the “entertainment industry” to include theater, motion picture, radio, television, sound or visual recording, music, and dance productions. Work performed for conventions and trade shows falls outside the definition of the entertainment industry.

Convention work. For many years, employees covered by the trust’s pension plan primarily performed entertainment work. However, in recent years, hotels and other Las Vegas venues shifted to hosting more conventions and trade shows than traditional entertainment productions, so employees covered by the plan started to earn more of their wages through convention work. The trust amended its plan restatement in 2013 to state that it “is not an Entertainment Plan under ERISA.”

From 2008 to 2016, the employer contributed to the trust’s plan on behalf of the stagehands for its theatrical production of Jersey Boys. In September 2016, the musical closed, and the employer stopped contributing to the plan. The trust sent the employer a letter, asserting that it owed $913,315 in withdrawal liability. The employer requested review of the trust’s assessment, but the trust never responded.

Arbitration. The employer initiated arbitration asserting that it qualifies for the entertainment exception to withdrawal liability. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of the employer, ordering the trust to rescind its withdrawal liability assessment. The arbitrator found that: (1) the plan was an entertainment plan in 2008, when the employer first joined; (2) the trust failed to provide updated data proving that it is no longer an entertainment plan; and (3) the trust improperly amended its plan in violation of ERISA.

Lower court ruling. The trust filed suit to vacate or modify the arbitration award in the district court. The district court found that the arbitrator should have determined the plan’s status as an entertainment plan based on the year that the employer withdrew from the plan, rather than the year it joined. The district court thus vacated the award and remanded to the arbitrator.

On remand, the arbitrator granted summary judgment in the trust’s favor and ordered the employer to pay withdrawal liability. The arbitrator held that the trust reasonably determined that its plan does not “primarily cover employees in the entertainment industry” because less than half of its employees earned more than half of their wages from entertainment work.

The employer brought an action in the district court to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the trust, finding that the plan does not primarily cover entertainment employees because fewer than half of its employees earned the majority of their wages from entertainment work. The employer appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and the trust cross-appealed.

Entertainment exception. The MPPAA provides an exception for employers operating and contributing to plans in the entertainment industry. The entertainment exception exempts an employer from paying withdrawal liability if: (1) the employer contributes to the plan “for work performed in the entertainment industry, primarily on a temporary or project-by-project basis;” (2) “the plan primarily covers employees in the entertainment industry;” and (3) the employer ends its entertainment work in the jurisdiction and does not resume the work within five years.

Here, the parties agreed that a pension plan “primarily” covers entertainment employees if more than half of the covered individuals are employees in the entertainment industry. But they disagree about whether there is a similar requirement for the minimum amount of entertainment work that an individual must perform to qualify as an “employee in the entertainment industry.” The trust argued that over 50 percent of an individual’s work must be in the entertainment industry for the individual to be an “employee in the entertainment industry.” The employer countered that the statute imposes no minimum entertainment-work requirement.

Minimum entertainment-work requirement. If there is no minimum requirement, the plan “primarily covers employees in the entertainment industry” because more than half of the covered employees performed some entertainment work. But if individuals must earn more than 50 percent of their wages from entertainment work to be “employees in the entertainment industry,” the plan does not “primarily cover employees in the entertainment industry” because less than half of the covered employees performed the majority of their work in the entertainment industry.

For the entertainment exception to apply under the MPPAA, a pension plan must primarily cover “employees in the entertainment industry.” Under a plain reading of the text, an individual who performs work in the entertainment industry is an “employee in the entertainment industry.” The text does not say that an individual’s work must be “substantially” or “primarily” in the entertainment industry to qualify—any amount of entertainment work suffices. Thus, the plain text of the exception covers employees working in the entertainment industry without restriction. Based on the unambiguous text, the appeals court declined the trust’s invitation to read in a minimum entertainment-work requirement.

“Employees in the entertainment industry”. Even if the text were ambiguous, the best reading of the exception is that “employees in the entertainment industry” are individuals performing any amount of entertainment work. Congress knew how to impose quantitative limits on who qualifies as an “employee in the entertainment industry,” but it did not do so. In other parts of the MPPAA, Congress inserted language like “insubstantial portion,” “substantially all,” or “primarily” to limit the applicability of withdrawal exceptions to employers and plans conducting a certain amount of work in the relevant industry.

In contrast, the phrase “employees in the entertainment industry” does not include any limiting language. The exception requires that a plan “primarily” cover employees in the entertainment industry, but it does not require that employees “primarily” work in the entertainment industry. The existence of limiting language elsewhere in the MPPAA indicates that Congress intentionally excluded it here.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was reversed.

The cases are Nos. 24-2791 and 24-3047.

Judge: Desai, R.

Attorneys: Christopher M. Humes (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck) for Nevada Resort Association—International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the US and Canada Local 720 Pension Trust. Eric D. Field (Littler Mendelson) for JB Viva Vegas LP.

Companies: Nevada Resort Association—International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the US and Canada Local 720 Pension Trust; JB Viva Vegas LP

Cases: PensionBenefitPlans Labor UnionsMembers AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews