On September 24, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the full 9th Circuit to rehear a case with broad implications for ERISA plans. Plaintiff brought this class action against his employer alleging that his pension plan did not provide for an offset of benefits that occurred. At trial, plaintiff raised for the first time a minimum benefit claim—an argument that the plan provided for a minimum benefit for each year of service, regardless of the offset. The Central District of California disagreed and entered judgment for defendants. But a 9th Circuit panel reversed. In doing so, the panel held that the plan provided for the minimum benefit without giving the plan administrator any opportunity to present evidence to the contrary.
We argued that rehearing is necessary to resolve a conflict between the panel’s decision and binding circuit precedent. The panel’s decision undermines efficient, predictable, and uniform plan interpretation by side-stepping the mandatory deference ERISA affords plan administrators to interpret plans. As employers, all manufacturers have an interest in this deference to plan administrators to protect consistent plan administration.