The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling Tuesday in a closely watched pension liability case involving Las Vegas casino operations and entertainment industry workers. The decision in *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* addresses critical questions about employer withdrawal liability under federal pension law.
The appeals court panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Eric D. Miller, and Roopali H. Desai, issued its opinion on Jan. 6, 2026, reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada's grant of summary judgment in favor of the pension trust. Judge Desai authored the opinion for the three-judge panel.
The case centers on withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, which amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to impose financial obligations on employers that withdraw from multiemployer pension plans. JB Viva Vegas challenged its liability under this federal statute after withdrawing from the pension plan administered by the Nevada Resort Association-International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 720 Pension Trust.
At the heart of the dispute is an exemption from withdrawal liability for employers contributing to plans that primarily cover "employees in the entertainment industry." The casino operator argued it qualified for this exemption, while the pension trust maintained that JB Viva Vegas remained liable for withdrawal obligations despite the entertainment industry connection.
The Ninth Circuit panel examined the plain text of the statute to determine whether there is a minimum amount of entertainment work required for an individual to qualify as an employee in the entertainment industry under the MPPAA. The court held that the statute's language contains no such minimum threshold requirement.
"Under the plain text of the statute, there is no minimum amount of entertainment work required for an individual to be an employee in the entertainment industry under the MPPAA," the court wrote in its opinion. This interpretation proved favorable to JB Viva Vegas's position in the case.
The appeals court noted that even if the statutory text were considered ambiguous, the best reading of the exception would still support the casino operator's interpretation. This analysis demonstrates the panel's thorough examination of both textual and interpretive approaches to the legal question.
The case originated in the District of Nevada under the supervision of District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey. The district court had initially granted summary judgment in favor of the pension trust, a ruling that JB Viva Vegas successfully appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court heard oral arguments on March 5, 2025, in Las Vegas, Nevada, before issuing its reversal decision.
The multiemployer pension system plays a crucial role in providing retirement benefits for workers across various industries, particularly in sectors where employees frequently move between different employers. The entertainment industry, including casino operations, theater productions, and film work, relies heavily on this system to ensure workers maintain pension coverage despite changing employment situations.
Withdrawal liability rules were designed to prevent employers from abandoning pension plans and leaving remaining participants to bear the financial burden of underfunded obligations. However, Congress included specific exemptions recognizing the unique characteristics of certain industries, including entertainment.
The Nevada Resort Association-International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 720 represents workers in various entertainment-related roles throughout the Las Vegas area, including casino entertainment venues, theaters, and production facilities. These workers often move between different employers within the entertainment sector, making multiemployer pension plans particularly valuable for maintaining retirement security.
JB Viva Vegas operates in Las Vegas's competitive casino market, where entertainment offerings are integral to business operations. Many casino operators employ workers who could qualify as entertainment industry employees under federal pension law, making this case's outcome significant for the broader Las Vegas hospitality and gaming sector.
The Ninth Circuit's decision now returns the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court's interpretation of the entertainment industry exemption. The remand means the lower court must reconsider the summary judgment motion in light of the appeals court's holding about the statutory interpretation.
This ruling could influence how other courts interpret the entertainment industry exemption under the MPPAA, particularly in cases involving employers who argue their workers qualify for the exception. The decision may also affect how pension trusts evaluate withdrawal liability assessments for employers in entertainment-adjacent industries.
The case highlights the complex intersection of federal pension law, industry-specific exemptions, and the unique employment patterns in Las Vegas's entertainment and gaming sectors. As the matter returns to district court, both parties will need to address the legal framework established by the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the statutory language.