Dawn Dellapa, the widow of Cincinnati Reds All-Star pitcher Tom Browning, sued the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan and Pension Committee on Monday in a Florida federal court, arguing she has been wrongly denied surviving spouse benefits under Browning’s pension.
Central to the case is whether Dellapa marrying Browning less than a year before his death disqualifies her.
Browning, a left-hander, pitched in the big leagues from 1984 to 1995. He won 20 games in 1985, threw a perfect game in 1988—the only perfect game in Reds history—and led Cincinnati to its World Series victory in 1990. Browning retired in 1996 with a career record of 123-90 and a 3.94 ERA. The Reds inducted him into their Hall of Fame in 2006.
According to Dellapa’s complaint, which was drafted by William J. Schifino Jr., and other attorneys from Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, Dellapa began a relationship with Browning in 1991, and the couple had a child together in 1995. Dellapa and Browning married on Oct. 31, 2022, a couple of months before Browning died on Dec. 19, 2022, at the age of 62.
In 2023, Dellapa requested an application for a surviving spouse pension benefit, but it was denied on the basis that she was not a “qualified spouse.”
The benefit plan office explained to Dellapa that because she was not married for a continuous period of at least one year on the date of Browning’s death, she was ineligible. The relevant eligibility rule lists a qualified spouse as one who is a widow and who “may”—the word “may” is central to the legal dispute—be either married for at least a year or widow of an “active member.” An active member includes “field personnel,” which refers to “coaches, trainers, assistant trainers, and managers.” Browning, according to the complaint, “was actively employed as an advisor and consultant to his former team,” but that fell short of “active service” since he was not field personnel.
Dellapa, whose appeal to the pension committee was unsuccessful, contends that even though she was married to Browning for less than a year at the time he died and even though he wasn’t field personnel, she was nonetheless qualified given the language of the policy. The policy contains the word “may” rather than “is” or “must.” The word “may,” Dellapa notes, was added to a policy amendment in 2020.
- Pre 2020 amendment: “Qualified Spouse” is a Spouse who survives after the death of the Member and is either . . .
- Post 2020 amendment: “Qualified Spouse” is a Spouse who survives after the death of the Member and may be either . . .
Dellapa argues “the modification from the mandatory ‘is’ language to the permissive ‘may’ language” means she qualifies as a widow.
Dellapa also asserts that the plan benefit office’s interpretation of the rule “discriminates against older Members on the basis of age, with the beneficiaries of older Members, such as their spouses, being adversely affected.” To that point, Dellapa says older ex-players are “less likely” to be coaches and managers “due to the physical and mental limitations that accompany aging.”
The complaint raises claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, better known as ERISA. This federal statute governs retirement plans. Dellapa seeks a judicial order that would recognize her alleged eligibility. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday and U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.
The pension plan and committee are separate entities from MLB and the MLBPA. The committee that oversees the player pension plan is run by an equal number of player and MLB reps.
Attorneys for the defendants will have the chance to answer the complaint and raise defenses. Expect them to argue that they have reasonably interpreted the plan language. They might highlight that although the amended language uses the word “may,” that word is preceded by “and.” The use of “and” might be interpreted as meaning an additional requirement for a surviving spouse must be met (an interpretation that Dellapa contests).
The defendants will also receive deference from the court in how they interpret the language. The standard deference is that their interpretation is permissible unless it was arbitrary and capricious—a challenging threshold for Dellapa to meet. If the defendants show they have a pattern and practice of denying benefits in similar situations, it would help them establish they have been consistent, and neither arbitrary nor capricious.
