Francis A. Atkinson v. Sheet Metal Workers' Trust Funds of Southern California and Nevada

Good Law
833 F.2d 864·1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 15892
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 7, 198787-5915California1,205 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Francis Atkinson challenges the Sheet Metal Workers’ Trust Funds’ (Trust) decision to suspend his benefits because Atkinson worked as a heating and air-conditioning mechanic for a public school district in violation Article VIII, Section 7 of the Pension Plan (Plan), which precludes early retirees from both receiving pensions and “engagement as an employer or employee for compensation or profit in the sheet metal industry.” The district court granted summary judgment for the Trust. We review de novo the determination that the Trustee’s interpretation of the Plan is not arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. See Harm v. Bay Area Pipe Trades Pension Plan Trust Fund, 701 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir.1983). The arbitrary and capricious standard as used in the pension-fund context means that any reasonable resolution by the trustees of an ambiguity in the plan must be upheld. Smith v. CMTAIAM Trust, 654 F.2d 650, 655 (9th Cir.1981).

The Trust contends that it has reasonably interpreted “sheet-metal industry” to include, not only those employed by firms contributing to the pension fund, but also anyone performing services related to the work done by employees of contributing firms. In…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.