Notice: Eighth Circuit Rule 28a(k) Governs Citation of Unpublished Opinions and Provides That They Are Not Precedent and Generally Should Not Be Cited Unless Relevant to Establishing the Doctrines of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, the Law of the Case, or if the Opinion Has Persuasive Value on a Material Issue and No Published Opinion Would Serve As Well.scott Nielsen, Appellant,douglas Mcsherry; H.p. Anderson; Thomas Carter, Partiesimmediately Above Individually and for and Onbehalf of the Special Health Servicesemployee Assistance Programfor Twa Employees, Plaintiffs, v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Appellee.scott Nielsen, Plaintiff,douglas Mcsherry; H.p. Anderson; Thomas Carter, Partiesimmediately Above Individually and for and Onbehalf of the Special Health Servicesemployee Assistance Programfor Twa Employees, Appellants, v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Appellee, 81 F.3d 165 (8th Cir. 1996)

Scott Nielsen, Douglas McSherry, Tom Carter and Hal Anderson, former pilots for Trans World Airlines (TWA), sued TWA and five individual defendants¹  alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Count I of the pilots' complaint, brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1104, alleges that TWA breached fiduciary duties in administering Special Health Services (SHS), TWA's employee assistance program. Count II of the pilots' complaint alleges that TWA violated 21 U.S.C. § 1140 which prohibits retaliation for, or interference with, the assertion of rights provided under ERISA. TWA moved for summary judgment. The District Court²  denied TWA's motion for summary judgment on Count I finding disputed questions of fact, and granted summary judgment to TWA on Count II, holding that the pilots had presented no evidence of adverse employment action in retaliation for, or in interference with, rights under the SHS program. The District Court conducted a bench trial on Count I, and at the close of all the evidence ruled in favor of TWA on three independent and separate grounds: the pilots lacked standing to bring the lawsuit against TWA, SHS is not an employee welfare benefit plan subject to ERISA, and the pilots failed to show that TWA breached any fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1104.³  On appeal, the pilots argue that the District Court erred in reaching each of these conclusions.

Having carefully considered the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that no error of law or fact appears, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court for the reasons set forth in its well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.